MEETING
BEFORE THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
BOARD HEARING ROOM
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
2020 L STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
9:40 A.M.
Nadine J. Parks
Shorthand Reporter
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
MEMBERS PRESENT
John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Eugene A. Boston
Joseph C. Calhoun
Lynne T. Edgerton
M. Patricia Hilligoss
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Riordan
Ron Roberts
James W. Silva
Doug Vagim
Staff:
Michael Kenny, Executive Officer
Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel
Jim Schoning, Ombudsman
Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division
Linda Murchison, Chief, Stationary Source Emission
Inventory Branch, TSD
Richard Bode, Manager, Emission Inventory Methods
Section, TSD
Carolyn Lozo, Staff, TSD
George Alexeeff, OEHHA
Judith Tracy, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
Bill Loscutoff, Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory Division
George Lew, Chief, Engineering and Laboratory Branch, MLD
Cindy Castronovo, Manager, Testing Section, MLD
Frances Cameron, Staff, MLD
Diane Glazer, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
Bob Cross, Assistant Chief, Mobile Source Division
Jack Kitowski, Chief, On Road Control Regulations Branch,
Mobile Source Division
Fernando Amador, Staff, MSD
Michael Terris, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
John Holmes, Ph.D., Chief, Research Division
Bob Barham, Assistant Chief, RD
Tony Van Curen, RD
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
I N D E X
PAGE
Proceedings 1
Call to Order and Roll Call 1, 2
Pledge of Allegiance Led by Supervisor Silva 2
Opening Statement by Chairman Dunlap
and announcements of changes in staff
positions and presence of Ombudsman at
all meetings 2
AGENDA ITEMS:
96-7-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee
Regulation for Fiscal Year 1996-97
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 9
Staff Presentation:
Mike Kenny
Executive Officer 10
Carolyn Lozo
Staff
Technical Support Division 12
Summary of Written Comments Entered
into Official Record 22
Jim Schoning
Ombudsman 28
Questions/Comments 29
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jeff Sickenger
WSPA 31
Questions/Comments 32
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
96-7-1 Randy Brummett
Brummett & Associates 35
Questions/Comments 38
Record Officially Closed, to
Await Notice of 15-day comment
period 43
Ex Parte Communication Disclosure 44
Motion by Silva to Adopt
Resolution 96-45 45
Board Action 45
Comments re fuel cell bus by Ms. Edgerton 45
96-7-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendment
and Adoption of Regulations Regarding
Stationary Source Test Methods
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 47
Staff Presentation:
Mike Kenny
Executive Officer 48
Frances Cameron
Staff
Monitoring and Laboratory Division 49
Written Comments Summarized and
Entered into Record 58
Questions/Comments 62
(Direction and Suggestion to Staff) 64, 65
Jim Schoning
Ombudsman 68
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
96-7-2 Record Officially Closed to Await
Notice of 15-day public comment period 70
Motion by Mr. Parnell to Adopt
Resolution 96-46 71
Board Action 71
Presentation of Resolution re Pollution
Prevention Week 72
Motion by Roberts to Adopt Resolution 96-53 75, 76
Board Action 76
Presentation of Resolution to Jim Boyd
in appreciation for his years of service 78
Statement by Mr. Boyd 80
96-7-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
re emission standards for snowthrowers
and ice augers, and carbon monoxide
standard for 96-98 off-highway
Recreational Vehicles and Engines
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 84
Staff Presentation:
Mike Kenny
Executive Officer 85
Fernando Amador
Staff
On-Road Controls Section, MSD 86
Entry of Written Comments into
Record 89
Jim Schoning
Ombudsman 90
Questions/Comments 92
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
96-7-3 Record Officially Closed by Chairman 94
Motion by Calhoun to Adopt Resolution
96-47 95
Board Action 95
96-7-4 Research Proposals
Discussion 96
Motion by Riordan to Approve
all Proposals 115
Board Action 115, 116
Further Comment by Chair 116
Adjournment 117
Certificate of Reporter 118
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 --o0o--
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Will this, the
4 September meeting of the California Air Resources Board
5 please come to order.
6 Ms. Hutchens, will you please call the roll?
7 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston?
8 DR. BOSTON: Here.
9 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun?
10 MR. CALHOUN: Here.
11 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton?
12 MS. EDGERTON: Here.
13 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss?
14 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here.
15 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? Oh, I'm sorry.
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Been here a long time, Pat.
18 That's understandable.
19 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell?
20 MR. PARNELL: Here.
21 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan?
22 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here.
23 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts?
24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here.
25 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Here.
2 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim?
3 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here.
4 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you.
6 If I could ask the audience to please rise, along
7 with my colleagues on the Board. We've asked Supervisor
8 Silva to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
9 SUPERVISOR SILVA: As Supervisor of Orange County,
10 I serve on many commissions and boards. One thing that the
11 boards always agree on and true Americans always agree on,
12 and that's our pledge to the flag. Please join me.
13 (Thereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance
14 was recited by all in the hearing room.)
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate
16 that.
17 Well, I have an important announcement that I'd
18 like to make to start this meeting off on a very positive
19 note, and I'm pleased to be able to do this.
20 I'm proud to announce that the United States EPA
21 will announce today shortly that they have approved the
22 California State Implementation Plan for ozone, which is, of
23 course, the State's road map for attaining and maintaining
24 healthy air quality.
25 And I cannot help but note the tremendous
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 sacrifice that my colleagues on the Board put in to not just
2 to listen and hear the public, but to take positive action
3 in putting forward this plan. And that could not have, of
4 course, been done without the tremendous staff resources
5 that we have here -- not just the number, but in quality.
6 So, for Mr. Kenny, Mr. Scheible, Mr. Cackette, and
7 the rest of the team, the staff input was absolutely
8 essential to this being pulled off.
9 The Federal Government, I'm told, will be
10 officially endorsing the SIP as the one and only clean air
11 plan for California.
12 The SIP approval also removes the threat of the
13 Federal Government reinstating any type of a FIP, or a
14 Federal Implementation Plan. The Wilson Administration, our
15 congressional delegation, local leaders, and a broad
16 coalition of industry groups are all in agreement that
17 California must control its destiny, and the SIP represents
18 California's vision of a clean air future, one that is our
19 own and contributes to the health and well-being of all
20 Californians.
21 So, it's a proud moment for this Board and the
22 staff here. So, with that, Mr. Kenny, could I ask you to
23 say a word or two? I know I've missed a few staff people,
24 and I apologize. Kathleen, Lynn Terry, and others were, of
25 course, instrumental.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
4
1 So, Mike?
2 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3 I would simply like to congratulate the Board and
4 all of the staff members. I really think this is a great
5 day. And it took us a long time to get here, but I do
6 recall back in November of 1994, when we had the SIP
7 hearing, and the difficulties and the, you know, large
8 number of witnesses who testified about it.
9 But ultimately, the Board was able to come to a
10 consensus with regard to the approval of that SIP. And it
11 now took U.S. EPA some time to come to that same consensus.
12 But it's right that they did so. And so, today, I think
13 it's really, you know, quite gratifying. I think it's
14 really a great tribute to this Board and to the staff of the
15 Air Resources Board that U.S. EPA recognized the great work
16 that came from this organization.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Mr. Kenny. So, with
18 that, we'll move into the agenda. I will say there will be
19 a short celebration at a proper time this morning. Mr.
20 Kenny and his team have arranged to have a cake in the back.
21 So, some of us will indulge and taste the sweetness of that
22 moment in a little while.
23 This morning, I'd also like to acknowledge and
24 welcome the presence of three individuals, certainly not new
25 to the Board, but performing new and important roles here
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
5
1 today. Our new Executive Officer, Mike Kenny, who we just
2 heard from, has replaced Jim Boyd. And I'm pleased to say,
3 in the short month, month and a half, that he's been in this
4 new post, the working relationship is certainly solidified
5 with me and my colleagues on the Board.
6 And we're pleased to welcome you today officially,
7 Mike. Would you like to say a thing or two?
8 MR. KENNY: Thank you very much. I'm actually
9 very pleased to be here. I really look forward to working
10 with the Board. And this Board has a great reputation, a
11 reputation for excellence that I think is really unsurpassed
12 in State Government, if not national government.
13 At the same time, I mean, I feel a little bit
14 lucky, a little bit charmed in that, in my first Board
15 meeting, I get the opportunity to sit here while the U.S.
16 EPA's approving our SIP, which is kind of a nice, you know,
17 circumstance that one would have difficulty foreseeing.
18 But, thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Mike. And we have a new
20 member of our executive staff, also, our new General
21 Counsel, Kathleen Walsh.
22 Ms. Walsh, would you like to say a few words?
23 MS. WALSH: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. I'll keep
24 my remarks brief this morning, although I'm sure there are
25 some who would claim that that's not very lawyerly for my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
6
1 first official act here.
2 I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to work
3 with you, Chairman Dunlap, and the rest of the Board members
4 as we carry out our important mission to protect air quality
5 here in California.
6 I look forward to serving on the team headed up
7 here by Mr. Kenny as we work to bring forward to the Board
8 the well-developed and well-supported proposals that I know
9 you've come to expect from the staff of the Air Resources
10 Board.
11 For my part, with the very able legal staff here
12 at ARB, I commit to making sure that those proposals, both
13 in their development and implementation, are legally sound
14 and legally supported.
15 And thank you for your words of welcome.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You're welcome. And in a new
17 role for our Board hearing, the familiar face of our
18 Ombudsman, Jim Schoning, is in the second row back there,
19 who is seated behind Ms. Walsh and next to the other staff.
20 I've asked our Ombudsman to join us here to
21 comment not only on the substance of the regulatory items,
22 which staff brings before the Board -- for our staff and
23 witnesses do a splendid job of covering this area, the
24 substance -- but rather to comment on the process by which
25 these items come to us; that is, the nature, duration, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
7
1 frequency of public workshops and other activities
2 associated with bringing forward regulatory proposals and
3 looking out for the interests of interested parties.
4 And I think the reputation of the Board that Mr.
5 Kenny so generously outlined for us has certainly been
6 positive. But there is more that we can do to reflect the
7 concerns and the perspectives of those that our actions will
8 affect. And we're looking for Jim to kind of round that out
9 for us.
10 And just particularly, I've noticed the last year
11 or two, there's been many people -- much more avidly it
12 seems lately than in the past -- who have been willing to
13 devote the time and energy to speak and participate in the
14 environmental/regulatory arena. And it's important that we,
15 of course, reach to them.
16 While I've noted very few problems of excessive
17 shyness on the part of those that come before us, we still,
18 of course, can reach out to those that are not familiar with
19 us.
20 As I indicated, the Ombudsman will report on the
21 process by which regulatory items come before us. He will
22 typically do so following the staff's full presentation,
23 just prior to that point in our process where members of the
24 Board ask questions of the staff. And this has been worked
25 out carefully with Mr. Kenny.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
8
1 I'd like Mike to take a moment to perhaps
2 embellish on my overview.
3 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 As to the new role of the ARB Ombudsman in our
5 Board proceedings, let me just say that the staff and I
6 welcome not only the concept, but the individual.
7 While our reputation for our workshops and our
8 regulatory outreach is superb, it was achieved through
9 continuous improvement. This step sends an important
10 message that the Board is committed to continuing this
11 record.
12 Furthermore, in the 18 months since the Chairman
13 created the position of an ombudsman and appointed Mr.
14 Schoning, Jim has measurably strengthened the Board's
15 stakeholder outreach and proven an invaluable member of our
16 team.
17 So with that, I'd like to simply say, welcome,
18 Jim.
19 MR. SCHONING: Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay, Mr. Schoning, you're
21 poised now to round out the process. Jim, would you like to
22 say a word or two?
23 MR. SCHONING: I think almost enough has been
24 said, but thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mike. I
25 think this organization has set the standard for public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
9
1 participation and involvement in its work. And it's an
2 honor and a privilege to be able to contribute to that
3 process.
4 While we celebrate the accomplishments of the SIP
5 approval, as we all know, we have a long ways to go. We're
6 going to need to continue to take a lot more partners. And
7 if this function of the Ombudsman can help you send a clear
8 message that we welcome the full participation of those
9 partners in our processes, we're happy to serve.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim.
11 I made add, too, that Mr. Schoning has set up shop
12 out there. The Ombudsman office has a little table for
13 those that have issues in the audience or others are welcome
14 to access his program through the table that's available
15 prior to the Board meeting.
16 Okay. We'll move into the agenda.
17 The first item is Agenda Item 96-7-1. I'd like to
18 remind those in the audience that wish to comment on this
19 item to please see the Clerk to the Board, Ms. Hutchens, who
20 sits off to the left of the Board, and sign in with her.
21 If you have written comments, we need 20 copies in
22 order for all of my Board member colleagues to have copies
23 as well as the exec staff. So, please provide those copies
24 to them.
25 This is a public hearing to consider amendments to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
10
1 the air toxics hot spots fee regulation for fiscal year
2 1996-97. This item before the Board is the consideration of
3 proposed amendments to the air toxics hot spots fee reg. for
4 this fiscal year -- next fiscal year.
5 The Hot Spots Act requires California industries
6 to inventory toxic air emissions, to notify the public of
7 potentially significant health threats, and to reduce
8 significant-risk emissions.
9 The Act also places program implementation and
10 management responsibility on local air districts, the Office
11 of Environmental Health Hazard, and our own Air Resources
12 Board.
13 The law requires that the costs of the State and
14 local districts to implement and maintain the hot spots
15 program be recovered by assessing fees on facilities.
16 The State fee regulation is designed to generate
17 the revenue to recover the State's costs from all districts.
18 The proposed fee regulation before us today also recovers
19 costs for the nine districts whose fee schedules we are
20 adopting or considering adopting today.
21 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to
22 introduce the staff presentation. Mike?
23 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap, members of
24 the Board.
25 We are presenting the conclusion of Phase 2 of our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
11
1 proposed program that streamlines the effort which was
2 introduced at a previous Board hearing in January of this
3 year, and which the Board approved in June of this year.
4 We are a point in this program where we can much
5 has been accomplished. As in past years, staff has looked
6 at the program needs and reevaluated where we should focus
7 our efforts and where additional opportunities exist to
8 streamline the requirements and reduce the burden on the
9 regulated community.
10 Although we have focused on streamlining the
11 program to the greatest extent possible, we believe we have
12 maintained its public health benefits. We have worked
13 closely with interested members of the public, the regulated
14 community, health and environmental organizations, the local
15 air districts, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
16 Assessment to develop these proposed amendments.
17 Overall, staff held 11 public workshops throughout
18 California over the last eight months. Staff also conducted
19 numerous smaller meetings and conference calls with
20 interested parties. These meetings have been invaluable in
21 the development of these new amendments for assessing fees.
22 The proposed amendments revise the fee assessment
23 method, such that fees are based on a facility's health
24 impact. We are proposing fee exemptions for those
25 facilities which pose little or no health impacts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
12
1 We are also proposing significant reductions in
2 State costs to administer the program. Since staff's
3 original proposals were published, the Legislature has
4 passed and the Governor has signed Assembly Bill 564. This
5 bill contains exemptions similar to the exemptions proposed
6 by staff.
7 However, there are minor differences between the
8 bill and the proposed regulation which will need to be
9 addressed. Staff will discuss the impact of the bill and
10 our recommendations for revising the fee regulation.
11 With that introduction, I'd like to ask Ms.
12 Carolyn Lozo to present the proposed regulatory amendments.
13 Ms. Lozo?
14 MS. LOZO: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
15 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my
16 presentation today will discuss the staff's proposal that
17 the Board amend the air toxic hot spots fee regulation for
18 fiscal year 1996-97.
19 First, I will begin my presentation with some
20 background information about the fee program and discuss the
21 goals of the proposed amendments.
22 Next, I'll discuss changes to the program mandated
23 by legislation signed by Governor Wilson last week, then
24 I'll discuss budgetary aspects of the proposed amendments.
25 Finally, I will explain the proposed amendments in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
13
1 detail.
2 The Health and Safety Code requires that the ARB
3 annually adopt a regulation that provides for the districts'
4 collection of fees from affected facilities to cover the
5 costs of operating the hot spots program.
6 The regulation allocates the State's costs among
7 districts and establishes fee schedules for some districts.
8 Districts also have costs to implement the program. Each
9 district may adopt a rule to collect fees to recover its
10 costs of operating the hot spots program, or it may request
11 to be included in the State's fee regulation.
12 If a district adopts its own fee rule, it does have
13 to use the same fee bases as is used in the State's
14 regulation. The fees assessed through this regulation are
15 used to maintain inventories of air toxic emissions, to
16 prioritize facilities for preparation of risk assessments,
17 to review risk assessments, to notify the public of
18 potential health risks from toxics emissions, and to provide
19 guidance to facilities for reducing potential risk from
20 exposure to the emissions.
21 In January, 1996, ARB staff proposed a two-phased
22 approach to streamline the hot spots program. Under Phase
23 1, staff recommended an interim step that would exempt from
24 the fee regulation for fiscal year 1995-96 facilities that
25 present very low health risks to the surrounding public.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
14
1 Phase 1 was approved by the Board on January 25th, 1996
2 The second phase of the streamlining effort is
3 being completed now. This included the Board's approval in
4 July, 1996, of amendments to the emission inventory criteria
5 and guidelines report to further streamline the reporting
6 requirements and the applicability criteria for the hot
7 spots program.
8 Today, we are presenting the final element of
9 Phase 2 to the Board as amendments to the fee regulation for
10 fiscal year 1996-97. The amendments would change the method
11 used to calculate fees from one based on a facility's
12 program status to one based primarily on a facility's risk
13 or prioritization score.
14 It would also provide additional exemptions from
15 the fee regulation for fiscal 1996-97 for facilities whose
16 emissions pose small health risks.
17 Since the staff report was published, legislation
18 was signed into law by the Governor which affects our
19 proposal. Assembly Bill 564 introduced by Assemblyman
20 Cannella is summarized in the next slide.
21 AB 464 amends several provisions of the hot spots
22 program in the Health & Safety Code. The bill includes
23 exemption thresholds for the hot spots program and the fee
24 regulation.
25 Facilities with priority scores less than or equal
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
15
1 to one are exempt from the hot spots program entirely.
2 Facilities with priority scores less than or equal to 10 are
3 exempt from State fees. This change in statutory authority
4 alters the number of facilities paying fees. Staff has
5 modified the fee proposal that was issued in the staff
6 report to reflect AB 564.
7 Copies of the modifications that we made -- that
8 we have made to the proposal since the staff report was
9 issued are available on the table outside of this room. In
10 addition, AB 564 caps total State revenues to support this
11 program in fiscal year 1997-98 at $2 million and $1.35
12 million every year thereafter.
13 The bill also provides a mechanism for districts
14 to recover costs for processing emission inventory updates
15 by allowing districts to levy a fee of up to $125 to cover
16 the administrative costs of processing those emission
17 inventory updates. These provisions have also been included
18 in the amendments we are proposing today.
19 Although the Act does not require State revenues
20 to go to $2 million until fiscal year 1997-98, staff is
21 proposing a State budget of approximately $2 million to
22 support activities for the fiscal year 1996-97. This
23 represents a $700,000 reduction or about 26 percent for
24 fiscal year 1995-96. This reflects the streamlining
25 measures approved by the Board in July of this year.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
16
1 The staff proposal also includes a 5 percent
2 adjustment factor to account for unforeseen circumstances,
3 such as facility closure.
4 This graph shows the State's original five-year
5 plan of State cost reductions compared to the actual
6 proposed reductions. As you can see, the current proposal
7 provides a significant acceleration in cost reduction,
8 resulting in approximately 50 percent lower State cost from
9 the original five-year plan for fiscal year 1996-97.
10 This chart shows total program costs for the hot
11 spots program. Costs for the districts are approximately
12 $4.8 million, and the total sum of State and district costs
13 are estimated to be $6.7 million. This represents a
14 reduction of approximately 24 percent in total program costs
15 for fiscal year 1995-96.
16 The staff developed the proposed amendments to the
17 fee regulation with the assistance of the Air Toxics Hot
18 Spots Fee Regulation Committee, which includes
19 representatives from all 34 local air districts, ARB, and
20 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
21 This Committee meet either in person or via
22 conference call 12 times from December, 1995 to September,
23 1996, to develop and discuss the proposed changes to the fee
24 regulation.
25 Staff held a total of 11 public consultation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
17
1 meetings at different locations around the State to inform
2 the public and to solicit input about the development of the
3 fee regulation.
4 These workshops were held in December, 1995, and
5 in February, April, June, and August, 1996. Staff mailed
6 out notices to over 8,000 individuals for each of those
7 meetings.
8 Staff held conference calls and meetings with a
9 working group made up of representatives from over 80
10 affected industries, industry associations, environmental
11 organizations, and local public health officers.
12 The working group met 11 times from January to
13 September, 1996, to discuss the development of the fee
14 regulation.
15 In addition to those meetings, staff met with
16 specific industry representatives, including the Nisei
17 Farmers League, California Cotton Ginners Association,
18 California Grain and Feed Association, the Western States
19 Petroleum Association, Chemical Industry Council of
20 California, Pacific Gas & Electric, as well as others to
21 discuss the hot spots program and the fee regulation.
22 Finally, the proposed amendments to the air toxics
23 hot spots fee regulation, including the staff report and the
24 regulatory text, were sent to approximately 1700 individuals
25 in August, 1996, for their review and comment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
18
1 Staff had several goals in developing the new
2 method for assessing fees to support the air toxics hot
3 spots program for fiscal year 1996-97. We wanted to create
4 an equitable method to assess fees and districts' shares to
5 support the hot spots program.
6 We wanted to focus fees on higher risk facilities
7 and exempt low risk facilities. And to the maximum extent
8 possible, we wanted to set fee rates lower than the previous
9 year for comparable facility program categories.
10 With these goals in mind, we developed the
11 amendments proposed in the staff report. The amendments
12 base each facility's fees on each health risk assessment
13 result, or HRA, or priority score.
14 Low risk facilities and those that meet de minimis
15 activity levels are exempt from paying fees. De minimis
16 levels are throughput levels developed for specific industry
17 types which are considered very low risk.
18 These de minimis levels were approved by the Board
19 in January and July of this year. Higher risk facilities pay
20 the greater proportion of the fees.
21 Intermediate risk facilities, which we call
22 tracking facilities, as defined by the emission inventory
23 criteria and guidelines report, pay lower fees to maintain
24 the core activities of the program.
25 As was done in past years in calculating hot spots
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
19
1 fees, we used the complexity of a facility as a secondary
2 determinant of fees. As before, a simple facility is
3 defined as one with one or two distinct source
4 classification codes, or SCCs. SCCs are numeric codes that
5 describe specific emitting processes.
6 A medium facility has three to five distinct SCCs,
7 and a complex facility has greater than five distinct SCCs.
8 Districts also have costs to implement the
9 program. Each district may recover costs by adopting a hot
10 spots fee rule, or may request the ARB to adopt their fee
11 rule in the State's fee regulation.
12 This year, we are proposing to adopt district fees
13 for nine districts using the same fee methodology. The
14 following nine districts have requested that the State adopt
15 a fee regulation to recover their costs of implementing the
16 program: Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial County APCD,
17 Kern County APCD, Lassen County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD,
18 Santa Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Tuolumne County
19 APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.
20 The remaining districts are adopting their own fee
21 regulation.
22 We've established six new fee categories based on
23 HRA results and prioritization scores as well as retained
24 the industry-wide category.
25 The categories are unprioritized facilities,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
20
1 tracking facilities with priority scores greater than 10 and
2 HRA results from 1 to less than 10 per million, facilities
3 with priority scores greater than 10, facilities with HRA
4 results from 10 to 50 per million, facilities with HRA
5 results from 50 to 100 per million, facilities with HRA
6 results 100 or greater per million, and then industry-wide
7 facilities.
8 The definition of a tracking facility in today's
9 proposal is different from that in the staff report.
10 Because facilities with priority scores less than or equal
11 to 10 are exempted from the fee regulation, as required by
12 AB 564, these facilities have been taken out of that fee
13 category.
14 The facilities which remain in the tracking
15 category are those with HRA results from 1 to 10 per million
16 and with priority scores greater than 10.
17 These exemptions result in a 40 percent decrease
18 in facilities from the proposal in the staff report.
19 Facilities with priority scores greater than 10 and with HRA
20 results less than 1 are also exempt from the fee regulation
21 because the Board approved the staff's proposal to exempt
22 them from reporting during the July hearing.
23 Based on these fee categories, districts assigned
24 facilities to the appropriate facility program category and
25 sent the information to the ARB. This information was due
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
21
1 to the ARB by July 12th, 1996, in order that staff could
2 properly calculate the State's and each district's share of
3 the program cost.
4 The next two slides show the range of State fees
5 included in the proposed amendments for a facility in each
6 fee category. For instance, as shown on the first slide,
7 the industry-wide facilities will pay $15 to State fees, and
8 there's no range.
9 The range of fees to be paid by a tracking
10 facility would be $55 to $110.
11 Similarly, the fee ranges for unprioritized
12 facilities and with priority scores greater than 10 are
13 shown here.
14 These are the fee ranges from the schedule to
15 collect State fees to be paid by facilities in risk
16 categories 10 to less than 50 per million, 50 to less than
17 100 per million, and greater than 100 per million.
18 Based on these fee amounts, we've calculated the
19 districts' shares of State costs to be remitted to ARB.
20 Because of its length, we did not include a slide of this.
21 However, the district allocations are included in Table 1 of
22 the 15-day regulation package available at the back of the
23 room.
24 For Board members, we've included a Xerox table in
25 your slide package.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
22
1 As I explained previously, we are proposing to
2 adopt fee rules for nine districts. The next two slides
3 show the range of the sum of district and State fees
4 included in the proposed amendments for the nine districts
5 only. This range is reflective of the variance and the
6 number of facilities remaining in each district's program
7 and the total district program costs.
8 This slide continues the district plus the State
9 fees for the nine districts that we are adopting district
10 fee rules for.
11 This concludes the summary of the staff's proposed
12 amendments. We did receive several comments on our
13 proposal, and I can summarize those at this time if you'd
14 like.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: How many comments, separate
16 comments did you receive?
17 MR. LOZO: Thirteen.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. And we would, of course,
19 appreciate you batching them as you summarize them, because
20 we have all of them up here.
21 MR. LOZO: Okay. The ARB received several letters
22 from the regulated community supporting the proposed
23 amendments to the fee regulation. These include
24 Northwestern, Incorporated, an architectural woodworking
25 firm located in Van Nuys; the California Aerospace
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
23
1 Environmental Association, and the California Council for
2 Environmental and Economic Balance, or CCEEB.
3 Mr. Weisser, president of CCEEB, in addition to
4 support, went on to say that staff's efforts over the past
5 several years to refine the program should serve as a model
6 for regulatory reform.
7 We also received a letter of support from Craig
8 Anderson with Solar Turbines of San Diego. Mr. Anderson
9 recommends that the ARB use the most current prioritization
10 scores in the regulation received as of July 12th. This is
11 already our policy.
12 We received a letter from W. J. McConachie on
13 behalf of the autobody industry. He stated that all of his
14 concerns raised previously at the July Board hearing on the
15 emissions inventory criteria and guidelines report had been
16 addressed by staff satisfactorily. And he supports the
17 amendments to the fee regulation.
18 He also expressed his appreciation to the staff
19 for satisfying his concerns.
20 We received a letter from Paul Kronenberg of the
21 Chemical Industry Council of California. He supports the
22 ARB's proposed revisions. Mr. Kronenberg does, however,
23 express some concern about relying on risk and
24 prioritization score and not workload as the primary factor
25 in determining facility program categories.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
24
1 ARB staff developed the revised facility
2 classification system based on the California Health &
3 Safety Code, which requires us to consider toxic emissions
4 as the basis.
5 The CICC also recommended that the ARB use the
6 best information -- available information when allocating a
7 district's share of costs. ARB staff has been working
8 closely with the districts to ensure that the State's share
9 of costs are allocated based on the best available data.
10 The CICC expresses concern about the timetable for
11 the completion of specific OEHHA products, specifically the
12 risk assessment guidelines. We understand that OEHHA's
13 guidelines are now in draft form and will be released next
14 month for public comment.
15 We received a letter from Peter Hess, President of
16 the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association,
17 CAPCOA, which supports the current amendments to the fee
18 regulation.
19 In addition to the letter from CAPCOA, we also
20 received a number of individual letters from the districts.
21 We received a letter from the Santa Barbara County Air
22 Pollution Control District. They recommended a
23 clarification to one of the tables in the regulation.
24 There's already a footnote in the table clarifying
25 what is presented, but we will continue to work with the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
25
1 district to make the table more clear in the future.
2 We received two letters from the North Coast
3 Unified Air Quality Management District concerning the
4 process of sending -- screening risk assessments to OEHHA
5 for review. The requirements of allowing districts to
6 perform screening risk assessments is contained in the
7 emission inventory criteria and guidelines regulation, and
8 was only approved by the Board in July. And it has not yet
9 been approved by OAL.
10 There is ongoing dialogue between ARB, OEHHA, and
11 interested districts in developing an efficient process for
12 the review of screening risk assessments.
13 We received letters from the Sacramento
14 Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and the Mojave
15 Desert Air Quality Management District. Both have concerns
16 about the use of hazard indices for determining a facility's
17 program category.
18 We've discussed this issue with OEHHA staff and
19 have determined that hazard indices do represent true health
20 issues and should remain a part of this regulation.
21 However, based on a comment from the Sacramento District, we
22 did revise hazard index values to be consistent with risk
23 management guidelines.
24 We received a letter from the Lake County Air
25 Quality Management District. They suggested language that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
26
1 would make several fee assessment issues subject to district
2 discretion, the principal one being a recommendation that
3 the districts be given the discretion to determine which
4 facilities are assessed fees.
5 Health & Safety Code Section 44380 requires fees
6 be assessed the operators of every facility subject to the
7 program.
8 The district states that the definition of the
9 State industry-wide program -- facility program category is
10 not all inclusive of sources treated by districts as
11 industry-wide facilities. There already is a mechanism for
12 the districts to define their own industry-wide categories.
13 We received a letter from the South Coast AQMD.
14 The letter mainly deals with technical data changes.
15 However, they do have one comment on the fee method. They
16 are concerned about how industry-wide facilities would be
17 collected -- industry-wide fees would be collected.
18 We clarified to the district that the method
19 allowed districts flexibility in determining industry-wide
20 fees. The South Coast staff was satisfied with that.
21 We received a letter from the San Diego County
22 APCD. The district generally supports the adoption of the
23 proposed regulation. However, the district is concerned
24 that they have an opportunity to review the detailed
25 calculations made during the 15-day public comment period.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
27
1 We have provided the district with the detailed
2 information they requested and will work with them to
3 explain the district's share.
4 The 15-day package, which will not be officially
5 sent out until mid-October, will allow all interested
6 parties the opportunity to comment on changes presented at
7 the hearing.
8 The district staff also expressed concerns about
9 differences in approaches in calculating prioritization
10 scores and risks. The CAPCOA guidelines provide the
11 framework for determining the scores and risks, but they
12 also include some flexibility on how districts use them.
13 It is the district's responsibility to decide on
14 the method within that framework.
15 We received a letter from Mr. James Lichter of the
16 California Trade and Commerce Agency. Mr. Lichter made
17 several recommendations to clarify the regulatory text, and
18 we have incorporated them.
19 Mr. Lichter also recommended that the ARB staff
20 review the definition of the small business facility program
21 category next year during the development of the fee
22 regulation for fiscal year 1997-98. Staff intends to do
23 that.
24 That concludes my summary of the comment letters
25 that we received.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
28
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
2 Mr. Kenny, do you have anything to add?
3 MR. KENNY: Not at this time.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Mr. Ombudsman, would
5 you please address the process prior to today by which this
6 item came before us, and share with us any concerns or
7 comments you may have with the Board at this time?
8 MR. SCHONING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It appears to
9 us that the staff did an excellent job of reaching out to
10 appropriate stakeholders and affected parties, and
11 workshopped this proposal before you in an inclusive and
12 effective manner, given the difficult task of workshopping
13 an item that was being legislated in parallel with it.
14 And, as you've heard, the staff developed the
15 proposed amendment to the fee regulation with the assistance
16 of the 34 air districts' full participation and the Office
17 of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
18 As you've also heard, the Committee met either in
19 person or by conference call 12 times over the last eight
20 months. They held workshops in December of last year;
21 February, April, June, and August of the current year. And
22 staff mailed out notices to more than 8,000 individuals for
23 each of these workshops.
24 In addition, staff held conference calls and
25 meetings with a working group made up of representatives of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
29
1 more than 80 affected industries, industrial associations,
2 environmental organizations, and local public health
3 officers. The working group met 11 times from January to
4 September of this year to discuss the development of this
5 fee regulation.
6 Finally, the proposed amendments to the regulation
7 were sent to approximately 1700 individuals in August of
8 this year for their review and their comments.
9 We have no concerns as to the process and public
10 involvement.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Did they overdo it, Mr.
12 Ombudsman?
13 (Laughter.)
14 MR. SCHONING: I'll let the Board be the judge of
15 that.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you, Jim, for
17 that report. And I appreciate that perspective as well.
18 Do any of the Board members have questions of
19 staff before we get into the witnesses?
20 We have two witnesses by the way.
21 Dr. Boston.
22 DR. BOSTON: Health risk assessment is a very
23 difficult process. And according to the regulation, if a
24 facility is declared a high-priority facility, it has to
25 report to the district the health risk assessment that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
30
1 they've done.
2 How do they get help to do that, and who -- does
3 the ARB or the district help them prepare a health risk
4 assessment? That would be very difficult it seems for a
5 facility.
6 MR. BODE: I'm Richard Bode. And what happens is
7 the facility actually prepares the health risk assessment.
8 They do get assistance from their local district. The Air
9 Resources Board staff also is there to provide some
10 assistance. And the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
11 Assessment also provides assistance.
12 And, of course, at that time, after the final risk
13 assessment is provided from a facility to the district, the
14 district then reviews that risk assessment and then passes
15 that back on to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
16 Assessment, who does the final review, and passes their
17 comments back to the district.
18 So, there's quite a bit of review and comments
19 going back between the three major parties here.
20 Ultimately, that risk assessment is refined.
21 DR. BOSTON: So, they're not hung out on their own
22 to do that? They get help.
23 MR. BODE: Right. They get help. But it does
24 start with the facility themselves doing the risk
25 assessment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
31
1 DR. BOSTON: Okay. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions of staff?
3 Okay. With that, we'll go to the witnesses. Mr.
4 Sickenger, Jeff Sickenger from WSPA. Please come forward,
5 sir, followed by Randy Brummett from Brummett and
6 Associates.
7 No written testimony, but you'd like to comment to
8 the Board.
9 MR. SICKENGER: And I will be brief.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
11 MR. SICKENGER: Mr. Chairman, members of the
12 Board, my name is Jeff Sickenger. I represent the Western
13 States Petroleum Association.
14 WSPA appreciates the opportunity to address the
15 Board this morning. We view staff's proposed changes as
16 another significant step forward toward an equitable
17 maintenance mode that focuses on true hot spot facilities.
18 And we also appreciate staff's commitment to cap total State
19 costs at two million. We recognize that's a year in advance
20 of the AB 564 mandate, and we certainly appreciate that.
21 As we continue to move toward the final
22 maintenance mode, if you will, we believe that ARB is going
23 to need to focus its resources on two key areas. The first
24 one is further adjustments to the fee calculation
25 methodology to ensure that fees correspond to the actual
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
32
1 costs associated with maintenance mode facilities, and are
2 not simply redistributed to a diminishing population of
3 sources.
4 In other words, fees should not increase
5 substantially simply because additional facilities are
6 removed from the program. Fee increases should only be
7 based on changes at the facility that require further action
8 for which there is an associated State or district cost.
9 The second item is that there is an ongoing need
10 for clear guidance to the districts on program
11 implementation. And I'd like to address that issue in terms
12 of the second item on the agenda.
13 So, if the Board will indulge me to appear one
14 more time at the podium, I'll leave it at that, except to
15 say that we look forward to future amendments to the fee
16 regulation, which will hopefully reflect our growing
17 knowledge of the true risk posed by hot spot facilities.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Any questions
19 of the witness?
20 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
21 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Sickenger, I think this is the
22 first time you've appeared before us.
23 MR. SICKENGER: Actually, this is the second time
24 this year, I believe.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Second time. Okay. Well, it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
33
1 nice to see you. I didn't remember. I apologize.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, you said good things this
3 time. So, that's why it seemed like it was a new
4 appearance.
5 (Laughter.)
6 MR. SICKENGER: Did I not say good things last
7 time?
8 (Laughter.)
9 MS. EDGERTON: Your comments were to the effect
10 that you didn't think that the fees should increase for the
11 larger -- for the facilities who are emitting larger amounts
12 of pollutants, just because smaller facilities or facilities
13 emitting fewer pollutants were removed from the program.
14 And I was just curious. Don't you think it's
15 appropriate for the people who are making more -- who are
16 polluting more heavily to pay more?
17 MR. SICKENGER: Certainly. But the way we view
18 the evolution of the program, as our facilities have gone
19 through one complete iteration -- that is, we've done our
20 inventories, we've done risk assessments to the extent that
21 we needed to do them. And if we needed to notify, we've
22 done that, also.
23 Unless there is a significant change in operation
24 of the facility that would require that we go back into that
25 "do loop," if you will, then you know, in our mind, there is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
34
1 no rationale for arbitrarily upping that fee that that
2 facility's required to pay. Because, as a practical matter,
3 the risk that that facility poses to surrounding receptors
4 hasn't changed.
5 If other facilities are being exempted from the
6 program as the natural course of the evolution of the
7 program, then we expect that the administrative costs for
8 the program are going to go down, and that that ought to be
9 reflected in a total program cost reduction.
10 So, I guess we simply wouldn't expect, unless our
11 facilities had an increase in activity that led to an
12 increase in risk, we wouldn't expect to have to do anything
13 more, and we wouldn't expect to have a greater fee
14 associated with inactivity.
15 MS. EDGERTON: I can appreciate and understand why
16 that would be your position. However, would you agree that,
17 in some cases, scientific research and medical research can
18 identify that some of the risks are more severe than we
19 thought in some instances. And, therefore, with the same
20 amount of pollutants we may find that it's a greater risk?
21 MR. SICKENGER: Absolutely. We've always been
22 advocates for good science.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Great.
24 MR. SICKENGER: And if any risk assessment
25 methodology or new information is available relative to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
35
1 specific substances that our facilities are emitting, which
2 indicates that we actually pose -- our true risk is greater
3 than we thought it was previously, then we expect that we'll
4 have to do something more in the program.
5 MS. EDGERTON: And are you looking at -- do you
6 have a program of continuing risk assessment for these
7 facilities?
8 MR. SICKENGER: We do not. We've been through the
9 process once. And until such time that new information is
10 available from OEHHA addressing the potency or the hazard
11 associated with the substances that our facilities emit, we
12 don't expect to have to repeat that process.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I appreciate your comments.
14 I would caution, though, that I'm very mindful, as
15 are many of -- most everybody associated with the Air Board,
16 of the increasing concern that fine particulates, smaller
17 than PM10, are a tremendous risk, much greater than we had
18 formerly thought.
19 That's the reason why I was asking about it.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. SICKENGER: Understood.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you for your comments.
23 Mr. Brummett? I notice, sir, you're from Orange
24 County.
25 MR. BRUMMETT: Yes, I am. I flew up this morning.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
36
1 Thanks for the opportunity here. I just wanted to commend
2 you guys on your outreach program; otherwise, I wouldn't be
3 here. And it seems there's been quite a bit of effort on
4 all parties involved here.
5 But I did want to talk about a couple things,
6 because I think it needs to be addressed here. And I'm
7 going to focus on the South Coast District just at this
8 time, just because I think that's really where most of the
9 clients that I represent are. And I'm representing people
10 from the airline industry, aerospace, chemical distribution,
11 and a number of other -- semiconductors, and what not.
12 And the intent of the regulation, I believe, has
13 done a lot of things. And one thing it's done, it's really
14 focused people on what kind of chemicals they're using and
15 what kind of process in order to knock those down.
16 And because of that, in the South Coast District,
17 it's my understanding that 50 percent of the toxic air --
18 the AB 2588 companies are in that district. Okay? So,
19 that's pretty heavily loaded.
20 And I also, I believe, because of the economic
21 turndown in the South Coast District over the early
22 nineties, that a number of companies have cut back and/or
23 moved out of the State, or whatever that may be. And so,
24 what I have seen is that a lot of the prioritization scores
25 and/or health risk assessments have been used on 1989 or '91
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
37
1 data. And that does not reflect today's toxic chemical
2 usage within the district.
3 And what I would like to see is a couple things.
4 The July 12th date I think is unrealistic, and I'd like to
5 see that, if we could, move that to December 30 or something
6 like that so industry has a chance to respond in order to
7 do a couple things.
8 And one is the reprioritization of facilities. I
9 would like to see some sort of a push that -- there seems to
10 be no incentive right now for the districts to reprioritize
11 facilities based on current chemical usage. And I see that
12 as a major problem, as I indicated before, where the 89-91
13 reflections -- or emissions don't reflect today's operations
14 or operating scenarios.
15 I'd like to see, you know, some sort of incentive
16 that the districts actually prioritize those facilities to a
17 current -- at a minimum, a '95 level.
18 Also, I'd like to see -- there seems to be some
19 verbiage regarding a health risk assessment revision. I
20 just don't think that's -- from an industry basis, I don't
21 think that's doable. I mean, it's doable, but it's just
22 doesn't -- it's not cost-effective.
23 You're talking about a -- you know, a number of
24 the health risk assessments still aren't approved from
25 turning them in in 1991, and you're talking a 10 to $20,000
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
38
1 effort in order to revise a health risk assessment.
2 I would like to see a company be able to
3 reprioritize based on -- even if they've done a health risk
4 assessment in the past, because it's very -- it's very
5 simple to do, and it's very -- it's cheap and it's quick.
6 I don't know what the turnaround time for HRA
7 revisions are now, but I'm sure it's going to be a year or
8 two, and it's not going to be realistic there.
9 And I'd also like to convey that it seems that
10 this regulation changes every year -- the fee regulation.
11 And there's a lot of time and effort spent on that. And I
12 was hoping that we could get, you know, some sort of
13 solidification so that we, you know, turn this thing into a
14 three-year or whatever's realistic in order to do that.
15 Because it keeps changing so much. It's tough to drive a
16 stake in it to find out where you're at.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: On that, it's my understanding
18 that, because the fees have been -- new data's become
19 available about which facilities are in, the program has
20 shrunk, the universe has shrunk; and business, it seems --
21 not in every case, but in many cases, and the districts have
22 had an opportunity to lower and shrink their program.
23 And that's been reflected in the scope of the
24 program and the fee structure as I understand. That seems
25 to be a good thing. But you don't seem to think it's a good
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
39
1 thing. Is it because it's --
2 MR. BRUMMETT: (Interjecting) No. That's exactly
3 what's -- I think if you reprioritize the facilities, you'll
4 have a large -- very large number fall out of the program.
5 But we're not seeing that.
6 We're seeing annual billings and no
7 prioritization, just based on what the original -- the
8 original fees were.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Do you have any final
10 points? Because I'm going to ask staff to respond to a
11 couple of these, sir.
12 MR. BRUMMETT: No.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If you don't' mind, if you'll
14 just stay. Staff, what about this three-month slippage he's
15 suggesting from September to December? Is that a
16 possibility? What does the law require?
17 Is it something that we support, oppose, or what's
18 the reason behind the September 30 time frame?
19 MS. MURCHISON: I'm Linda Murchison. And let me
20 start that, and maybe someone can jump in along the way.
21 We originally set the July 12th deadline so that
22 we could receive the district facility counts and
23 information that we needed to calculate the fee regulation.
24 The reason we set it in July, we wanted an
25 opportunity to actually calculate the fee rates so that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
40
1 could then go out to workshops and to our industry working
2 groups, and they would have an opportunity to comment on it.
3 We did allow for corrections if there were true
4 errors or in situations where facilities were out of
5 business, we made some changes after the July 12th.
6 But we thought it was important to kind of nail
7 down the date so that we would have that opportunity to go
8 through the public process and give everybody an opportunity
9 to see what the real rate would look like given those
10 counts.
11 If we move it off, then there will be a lot of
12 flux in the rates again, and I think we'd feel obligated to
13 go back through the public process to allow all the other
14 facilities an opportunity to see what their new rate would
15 look like.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What about the matter of the
17 characterization about the three-year fee schedule? Can you
18 articulate better than better than I did why this is working
19 positively for his clients?
20 MS. MURCHISON: We have, based on our proposal and
21 the changes due to AB 564, over 3,000 facilities dropped out
22 of this fee regulation. So, we feel that there was a
23 significant reduction in the number of facilities.
24 I think his comment is aimed at -- is that perhaps
25 others would have dropped out if the districts had provided
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
41
1 different information.
2 We did ask the districts for the most current
3 information that they had available to us -- to them.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dependent upon what they provide
5 to us; is that correct?
6 MS. MURCHISON: That's correct.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
8 So, sir, it seems, in that case, your concern
9 could be best addressed at the local -- is it nine
10 districts? How many? Nine districts --
11 MS. MURCHISON: Right.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- in the program?
13 MS. MURCHISON: Right. Well, it's really all
14 districts for the State portion of it.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
16 MS. MURCHISON: And then the nine individual ones,
17 we adopted their regulation.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
19 MS. MURCHISON: In the case of the South Coast, we
20 are adopting their regulation for them today.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. There was a
22 third item. Did I miss it?
23 MR. BRUMMETT: The using reprioritization scores
24 versus health -- revised health risk assessments for
25 companies that have submitted health risk assessments in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
42
1 past.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What about that?
3 MS. MURCHISON: Yeah. The policy that we used,
4 when we asked for the data from the districts, was that,
5 first, we wanted the prioritization score if no risk
6 assessment had been done. If risk assessments have been
7 done, then we would use that information.
8 If a facility had submitted an updated emission
9 inventory report that was approved and then had been
10 reprioritized by the district, we would use that
11 information. But once again, it's dependent on the district
12 doing that and providing that information to us.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have a number of
14 representatives on this Board from the local districts. So,
15 what I would ask you to do, if you don't mind, is meet with
16 Mr. Schoning and maybe put together those three points with
17 him, package it in some way, and we'll make sure it gets
18 forwarded to the local districts for them to be aware of it
19 as well. Okay?
20 And I appreciate your opening comments, too, about
21 the process. It looks to have been a good one as well.
22 Yes, Supervisor Silva.
23 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Yes. I would like to add, Mr.
24 Brummett, I appreciate you being up here and your comments,
25 I have an office in Santa Ana, and Nina Hall in the back of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
43
1 the room, would be more than happy to give you our phone
2 number and address, and perhaps we could get together.
3 I know that sometimes it's difficult at the last
4 minute to try and meet the issues and concerns that you
5 have. And we could have worked on this prior to the
6 meeting.
7 MR. BRUMMETT: Okay.
8 SUPERVISOR SILVA: So, I'm looking forward to
9 working with you.
10 MR. BRUMMETT: Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thanks very much, sir.
12 Any other questions that the Board has?
13 Mr. Kenny, do you have anything to add? We've
14 summarized the written comments that we've received.
15 MR. KENNY: I think at this time, Mr. Chair,
16 members of the Board, we would simply recommend that the
17 Board adopt the amendments to the regulation, as proposed,
18 with the modifications that we've identified.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Okay. I will now
20 close the record on this agenda item. However, the record
21 will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public
22 availability is issued.
23 Written or oral comments received after this
24 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not
25 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
44
1 item.
2 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment
3 period, the public may submit written comments on the
4 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
5 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
6 Again, just a reminder to my colleagues on the
7 Board of our policy concerning ex parte communications.
8 While we may communicate off the record with outside persons
9 regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of
10 our contacts and the nature of the comments on the record.
11 And this requirement, of course, applies
12 specifically to communications which take place after notice
13 of the Board hearing has been published. Are there any such
14 contacts that need to be reported?
15 Okay. Supervisor Silva.
16 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
17 read a letter that I received from a Mr. McConachie.
18 (Reading) Please find enclosed a letter to Linda
19 Murchison in regards to California Code of Regulations,
20 Title 17, Air Toxics Hot Spots. Linda and several others in
21 the ARB have telephoned me and sent literature. And, as you
22 will see from our letter, it would appear that all issues
23 have been addressed and resolved.
24 On behalf of all the small businessmen engaged in
25 the auto body shop industry, I'd like to thank the ARB staff
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
45
1 in Sacramento for their help and encouragement.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you for that. It appears,
3 Mr. Kenny, that your team covered the bases on this one as
4 far as outreach, and I appreciate that.
5 MR. KENNY: It sounds like they did a great job.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Well, Board members,
8 we have before us Resolution 96-45, which contains the staff
9 recommendation. And the Chair would entertain a motion and
10 a second to adopt the staff proposal.
11 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I move Resolution 96-45.
12 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Second.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Silva made the
14 motion. Supervisor seconded.
15 Any discussion? All right. We'll do a voice
16 vote. All those in favor, say aye?
17 (Ayes.)
18 Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries.
19 Thank you. Thank you, Linda, and to your team. I
20 appreciate it. Fine job.
21 Okay. The second item on the agenda today is --
22 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Chairman, while the people are
23 changing --
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure.
25 MS. EDGERTON: I wanted to relate to you an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
46
1 experience I had yesterday. This has to do with the SIP.
2 You kindly suggested and invited me to represent the Air
3 Board at the test drive of the Ballard Fuel Cell II bus.
4 And Supervisor Burke was there, and the head of MTA, and the
5 president of Ballard, and the Mayor Los Angeles came by.
6 And what we all did was, at the end of the spoken
7 comments was, we were all invited to toast this new fuel
8 cell bus. And what we drank was the vaporized water from
9 the fuel cell bus process. And so, while now, in my
10 pleasure of serving on the Air Board has included reviewing
11 the State SIP, reviewing the proposal to FIP and the SIP,
12 sipping the FIP. And now, I have sipped the sip.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Was it --
15 MS. EDGERTON: It tasted fine.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It did?
17 MS. EDGERTON: And I'm still here. I'm alive.
18 But it was very interesting to be drinking the water from
19 the engine. From the SIP.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Well, you seemed to
21 be the right one to send to those events, Lynne.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Let's move on.
24 96-7-2. And again, I'd like to remind those in
25 the audience that wish to testify on any item, please
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
47
1 provide the Clerk to the Board, Ms. Hutchens, 20 copies of
2 any written comments.
3 This item is a public hearing to consider the
4 amendment and adoption of regulations regarding stationary
5 source test methods. And, as we know, good air pollution
6 decisions are based on sound technical information, which
7 includes accurate measurements of source emissions.
8 State law requires the ARB to adopt test
9 procedures to determine compliance with ARB and district
10 stationary source emission standards. And this item is part
11 of our continuing effort, the continuing effort of the Board
12 to update and improve the ARB source test methods, as well
13 as make the methods more consistent with corresponding U.S.
14 EPA approaches and methods.
15 So, at this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny
16 to introduce this item and begin the staff's presentation.
17 Mike?
18 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap and members
19 of the Board.
20 Since the early 1980s, the Board has adopted 47
21 stationary source test methods. These methods are used for
22 determining compliance with district rules and also to
23 evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control
24 equipment, support control measure development, and develop
25 emission inventories.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
48
1 Most of the ARB methods are developed for use in
2 the ARB's State regulations, such as the air toxic control
3 measures and air toxic hot spots regulations, or in district
4 rules.
5 ARB methods are also used for research studies
6 when using a consistent measurement technique is desirable.
7 During preparation of the proposed revised method,
8 the staff has consulted interested parties, including the
9 U.S. EPA, districts, source test contractors, and analytical
10 laboratories.
11 Some of the revisions were prompted by U.S. EPA
12 requests that the ARB upgrade methods so that the method can
13 be incorporated into the State Implementation Plan.
14 Care has been taken to promote consistency with
15 U.S. EPA methods to avoid multiple test requirements for the
16 same pollutant at a facility. New analytical procedures
17 have been added to improve the quality of the data and
18 provide more flexibility for the tester.
19 The revised methods are not expected to increase
20 costs of the testing, except in the case of Method 100, for
21 which a 10 percent cost increase is projected.
22 Before we hear the staff's presentation for this
23 agenda item, I would like to mention one general revision
24 which applies to all test methods considered today. To
25 ensure statewide consistency, we are proposing to remove the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
49
1 authority of the districts to approve modifications to the
2 adopted methods.
3 Under the proposal, the ARB Executive Officer
4 would approve all modifications as long as they are found to
5 give results that are equivalent to the adopted method. We
6 believe that ARB approval would ensure that modifications
7 are reviewed in a consistent manner and the stringency of
8 the method is not compromised.
9 The requirement of ARB Executive Officer approval
10 is not new, and is currently in place for the air toxics
11 control measures and hot spot regulations. Districts will,
12 however, continue to have the authority to adopt their own
13 test methods, including the authority to approve
14 modifications to their methods, an option that is exercised
15 by the larger districts, such as the South Coast and the Bay
16 Area Air Quality Management Districts.
17 At this time, I would like to turn the
18 presentation over to Frances Cameron of our Monitoring and
19 Laboratory Division, who will review the staff's
20 recommendation.
21 Ms. Cameron?
22 MS. CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Good morning,
23 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
24 The proposal before you today is to revise six
25 stationary source control methods previously adopted by the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
50
1 Board, as well as to adopt one new test method.
2 Before I discuss this proposal, I will first
3 provide an overview of source testing as a context for
4 today's action.
5 What is emission testing used for? Districts use
6 ARB test methods to determine if a facility is meeting
7 emission regulations. ARB test methods are used to
8 determine compliance to the State's air toxic control
9 measures.
10 Also, emission testing is conducted to evaluate
11 the performance of air pollution control equipment.
12 And finally, emission tests are performed to
13 obtain emissions inventory information.
14 Climbing a tall stack is what many people
15 visualize when emissions testing is discussed. While at
16 times we may have precariously from heights like these, we
17 may also test emissions from the blue process unit shown in
18 this slide. This is a catalytic oxidation control device
19 used to reduce the emission of ethylene oxide from a
20 sterilizer inside a hospital.
21 The most vital component of a source test is the
22 people. A source team may routinely consist of three to
23 five people with expertise in source testing. The source
24 test must be conducted according to a specified procedure.
25 In addition to ARB test methods, EPA and some district
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
51
1 methods are also available.
2 The data from a source test is a snap shot of the
3 emissions at a facility. A test can vary between 30 minutes
4 to eight hours; however, long-term emissions information is
5 provided by permanently installed continuous emission
6 monitors, or CEMs, and not by the source tests we are
7 discussing today.
8 This picture shows the test apparatus or the
9 sampling train used to measure poly aromatic -- polycyclic
10 aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.
11 This is a diagram of the modified Method 5
12 sampling train which was pictured in the previous slide.
13 Regardless of the individual components of a specific source
14 test, there are elements common to all sampling methods.
15 The tester first extracts a sample from the stack
16 through the sample probe. This slide is a view of the
17 sample probe which the source tester has inserted through a
18 port in the side of the stack.
19 Depending on the pollutant of interest, the sample
20 is collected on various media. A particulate sample may be
21 collected on a filter. Gases may be captured by condensing
22 or reacting with various reagents in solution in a series of
23 glass impingers.
24 Impingers are also used to condition the sample by
25 removing moisture, acid gases, or other constituents which
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
52
1 may interfere with measurement of the target constituent or
2 damage an analyzer.
3 Semi-volatile organic compounds, including PAHs,
4 are collected in a resin-packed cartridge. Organic gases
5 may be collected in Tedlar bags or evacuated cylinders for
6 analysis at a later time.
7 Alternately, a gas sample may be conditioned and
8 directly delivered to a gas analyze to obtain immediate
9 information on pollutant concentrations. With the exception
10 of analysis by an onsite gas analyzer instrument, as shown
11 on the previous slide, all of the pollutant samples I have
12 mentioned must be analyzed in a laboratory.
13 Listed above are many of the laboratory methods
14 that are used to analyze the collected sample. Analysis
15 ranges from simply weighing the particulate matter on a
16 filter to multi-step laboratory procedures for sample
17 recovery and analysis. These more sophisticated procedures
18 include gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, and various
19 spectroscopy procedures.
20 Each source test method contains specific
21 procedures to ensure that data collected will be accurate
22 and precise. Some quality control and quality assurance
23 activities include instrument and meeter calibrations and
24 the determination of interference from nontarget
25 constituents. Other activities are the use of field and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
53
1 laboratory blanks and the use of spiked samples.
2 Here is a technician flushing a Tedlar bag with
3 nitrogen to prevent contamination of the sample which will
4 be collected.
5 This slide concludes our overview of emissions
6 testing. I will now present some details of today's
7 proposal.
8 Since 1983, the Board has adopted 47 test methods
9 which are applicable to a wide variety of stationary
10 sources. The proposal before you today is part of our
11 continuing effort too update and improve the ARB source test
12 methods.
13 Specifically, our proposal is to revise four
14 existing test methods, to adopt one new test method, and to
15 make minor revisions for two additional adopted test
16 methods.
17 We are proposing revisions to the four test
18 methods listed here. Method 100 is used for continuous
19 gaseous emission stack sampling. It specifies how to use
20 gas analyzers in the field to get realtime data for the
21 criteria pollutants.
22 Target pollutants include nitrogen oxides, sulfur
23 dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. The method is
24 frequently used for a variety of sources, including boilers,
25 stationary engines, and cement kilns.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
54
1 Method 425 is used to measure total and hexavalent
2 chromium at plating tanks, glass melting furnaces, and
3 utility boilers.
4 Method 429 is a procedure for measuring PAHs,
5 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, from a variety of
6 combustion sources. The method has been used at municipal
7 waste incinerators and wood-fired boilers.
8 Finally, Method 431 is used to determine emissions
9 of ethylene oxide, which is a sterilant used at hospitals
10 and other medical facilities.
11 We are proposing that the Board adopt one new test
12 method, Method 436, for the determination of multiple metals
13 emissions. The method has been used as a draft ARB
14 procedure since 1989, and has been revised a number of
15 times.
16 This method is used to measure up to 19 individual
17 metals, such as arsenic, lead, nickel, and mercury. The
18 method has been applied to measure emissions from combustion
19 sources. Some of these include tire incinerators, cement
20 kilns, and crude oil steam generators.
21 As the third element of the staff proposal, we are
22 recommending minor revisions and editorial changes to
23 adopted ARB Methods 5 and 7; 5 is used extensively to
24 measure particulate emissions. Method 7 is a wet chemistry
25 reference procedure for measuring nitrogen oxides.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
55
1 The proposed revisions to the above ARB test
2 methods are necessary changes. These revisions will ensure
3 that ARB methods are consistent with EPA test methods. The
4 proposal will also promote statewide consistency in source
5 testing.
6 Finally, our revisions provide flexibility,
7 incorporate new measurement technology, and improve data
8 quality.
9 We revised ARB methods to be consistent with EPA
10 test methods. With greater uniformity between State and
11 Federal test methods, a plant operator can lower costs by
12 running one test to meet both district and federal
13 requirements.
14 As an example, we included new quality assurance
15 procedures for Method 100. EPA required these procedures as
16 a condition to approve the State Implementation Plan. These
17 data quality procedures require the use of more field
18 calibration gases. As an alternative to the added cost and
19 hazard of transporting more gas cylinders, we now allow the
20 use of a gas dilution system.
21 We surveyed the source test companies, which are
22 certified by ARB, to determine the possible economic impact
23 of these data quality revisions. The survey results showed
24 that the cost of a Method 100 test would increase by about
25 10 percent, or $300.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
56
1 The proposed quality assurance procedures are
2 already required in EPA source tests. Thus, these revisions
3 are already standard practice for a number of companies.
4 In the interest of promoting uniform testing
5 statewide, we are now requiring that modifications to the
6 test methods can be approved only by the ARB Executive
7 Officer. Previously, either the districts or the ARB could
8 approve modifications to ARB test procedures.
9 However, several companies have requested the
10 change to simplify the business of source testing in
11 California. Districts still retain the authority adopt
12 their own test methods, and several districts have exercised
13 this option. For example, in the place of the ARB test
14 Method 100, the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
15 as well as the Bay Area and San Diego, have adopted their
16 own test methods.
17 We have also modified the methods to provide
18 flexibility for difficult-to-test industrial processes. As
19 an example, Method 431 is specified in the ARB's ethylene
20 oxide airborne toxic control measure for sterilizers and
21 aerators. One option we added is to collect an integrated,
22 or averaged, sample over an entire process cycle and analyze
23 that sample at the laboratory.
24 The method originally prescribed that a series of
25 grab samples of the exhaust be analyzed onsite. Although
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
57
1 our reason for this change is a more accurate measurement of
2 emissions, the cost of the test is also reduced because a
3 chemist and a gas chromatograph would no longer be needed at
4 the facility being tested.
5 We anticipate no adverse environmental impacts
6 from this proposal. Also, this proposal is not expected to
7 have significant adverse economic impacts, but should result
8 in some cost savings for source test firms and the
9 industrial community.
10 As outlined in previous slides, promoting
11 statewide consistency and consistency with EPA methods will
12 simplify testing requirements and result in lower costs to
13 industry.
14 And, as stated earlier, the proposed revisions for
15 Method 100 may result in a minimal cost increase for some
16 source test companies.
17 Your action today will assist source testers
18 statewide. A number of the revised methods are already
19 being used as draft ARB methods because of the necessary
20 improvements they contain. However, source testers are
21 currently required to obtain case-by-case approval for use
22 of these draft methods. Your action would eliminate this
23 requirement.
24 We develop ARB test methods to support
25 California's unique emission control programs. To rely
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
58
1 solely on U.S. EPA methods would be detrimental, because
2 there may be no EPA method available for a particular
3 pollutant or source.
4 For example, we developed Methods 429 for PAH and
5 431 for ethylene oxide because there was no EPA test method
6 available for either of these pollutants and their sources.
7 ARB methods also provide guidance and flexibility
8 not in EPA methods. And finally, many district regulations
9 refer to ARB test methods.
10 In conclusion, staff recommends that the Board
11 should adopt one new test method and the six revised test
12 methods.
13 Also, we propose that the regulations are adopted
14 to incorporate these test methods by reference.
15 I will now summarize the written responses we have
16 received during the 45-day public comment period. We did
17 receive a total of ten comment packages -- three from
18 industry, one from a source test company, two from
19 analytical labs, one from an instrument manufacture, two
20 from districts, and one from U.S. EPA.
21 So, I will go through each one now. Mr. Alan Bahl
22 of Red Star Yeast wrote regarding his concern that ARB
23 Method 100 would impose inappropriate requirements for the
24 permanently installed monitoring system at the Red Star
25 Oakland facility.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
59
1 Although Method 100 is titled "Continuous
2 Emissions Stack Sampling," the method does not apply to
3 continuous emission monitoring systems which are permanently
4 installed at the facility.
5 Mr. Bahl was relieved to learn that Method 100
6 would not apply to the monitoring installing at the Red Star
7 facility.
8 Michael Wang of WSPA provided general and
9 editorial comments on the proposed revisions. These include
10 support of ARB only modification approvals, coupled with the
11 request for guidance to avoid testing delays, while seeking
12 modification approvals.
13 The letter also highlighted the need to update
14 method references and consistent treatment of detection
15 limits in each method
16 Some of WSPA's requested changes are contrary to
17 long-standing ARB policies, which we agree should be
18 reviewed.
19 Although we have not yet had time to fully review
20 the comments, it is likely that many of the changes proposed
21 will be incorporated. And we also understand that someone
22 from WSPA will be testifying today.
23 Mr. W. A. Bromalesque (phonetic) of Chevron USA
24 Production Company wrote to propose a minor modification to
25 Method 100. We have spoken to Martin Lundy (phonetic) of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
60
1 his staff regarding his proposal to add flexibility to the
2 determination of gas stratification.
3 His suggestion has merit, and we would like to
4 review it more thoroughly, as we received it this morning.
5 Mr. Jim Steiner of Steiner Environmental suggested
6 a number of revisions to Methods 5, 100, and 436. His
7 comments reflect careful consideration of each of these test
8 methods. We recommend incorporating a number of his
9 recommendations regarding sampling equipment, test
10 procedures, and sample recovery.
11 We will not include some changes which are not in
12 the comparable EPA test methods due to our desire to
13 maintain consistency with EPA methods.
14 Other proposed revisions will not be included,
15 because our engineering review yielded a different solution
16 to some of the testing concerns Mr. Steiner discussed.
17 Mr. C. E. Riley of Triangle Labs, North Carolina,
18 provided comments for Methods 429 and 436. We will respond
19 to his concerns by modifying Method 429 to ensure that
20 contamination does not occur in sampling and recovery
21 procedures and by updating the bibliography to Method 436.
22 Mr. Robert Wright of Research Triangle Institute
23 commented on Method 100 regarding gas dilution systems. He
24 stated that gas dilution systems must undergo more extensive
25 evaluation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
61
1 He also commented that the method should allow the
2 use of technologies other than mass flow controllers. We
3 appreciate his informative letter and will consider his
4 comments to strengthen Method 100.
5 Mr. Bruce Shroyer of Calibrated Instruments
6 commented that Method 100 is deficient, in that it does not
7 provide criteria for the use of gas dilution systems other
8 than mass flow controllers.
9 He commented that the annual certification
10 procedure is not appropriate for positive displacement pumps
11 and capillary tube systems. We agree that the method does
12 not provide certification requirements appropriate to these
13 devices. We have invited Mr. Shroyer, as well as another
14 manufacturer, to provide us with an appropriate
15 certification protocol.
16 Until we are provided with that information, we
17 recommend that the existing Method 100 and gas dilution
18 appendix be adopted. The method does allow for alternative
19 gas dilution devices to be approved by the Executive
20 Officer. We will review the language and make modifications
21 to clarify that option.
22 The South Coast and San Diego Districts have made
23 comments on all the methods. We will adopt a number of the
24 proposed changes. We will also work with district staff on
25 the remaining minor issues.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
62
1 And finally, Mr. Daniel Meer, Chief of the
2 Rulemaking Section, EPA Region IX, has written to inform
3 staff that five of the seven proposed ARB methods are
4 acceptable and may be substituted for comparable EPA test
5 methods.
6 EPA did not provide review of ARB Methods 425 and
7 431, because the EPA has no comparable methods for those two
8 procedures.
9 As a result of the responses that we've received
10 during the 45-day public comment period, staff proposes to
11 make additional minor changes to the methods and provide
12 those changes to the public for a 15-day comment period.
13 This concludes the staff presentation.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
15 Any questions of staff before I go to Mr. Schoning?
16 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
17 MS. EDGERTON: I'd like to focus my questions on
18 the particulate emissions testing, ARB Rule 5. As you know,
19 we're going to need to put in a particulate SIP in 1997.
20 My understanding of this -- I just want to be
21 educated a bit. These are just questions to educate me. My
22 understanding is that -- am I correct that this measurement
23 not only measures down to particulate size 10 microns --
24 what does it measure to?
25 What does our testing measure?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
63
1 MS. CAMERON: It does measure total particulate.
2 There's a filter there, and then there are impingers. So,
3 whatever particulate was not caught on the filter would be
4 caught in solution in the impingers. And we do analyze
5 those impinger solutions for particulate.
6 MS. EDGERTON: What size particulate do you
7 analyze them for? What size?
8 MS. CAMERON: It would be everything, every
9 compound other than water that would show up in that
10 impinger would be counted as particulate.
11 MS. EDGERTON: So, if I understand you correctly,
12 the testing method tests particulates of every size,
13 including particulates of 2.5 microns?
14 MS. CAMERON: There's no size discrimination in
15 that method and it does, in fact, particulate that is formed
16 as aerosols.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Is there a way that we would know
18 how many of the particulates are 10 microns and how many are
19 2.5? Between 2.5 and 10 from this test?
20 MS. CAMERON: We do have a size segregated method,
21 Method -- I believe it's 501 -- that would take care of
22 those sizing issues.
23 MS. EDGERTON: So, if I understand you correctly,
24 the ARB is going to be in a position to have the data, as a
25 result of these tests, of what percentages of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
64
1 particulates from our stationary sources in the districts
2 are between 2.5 microns and 10 microns?
3 That data will be coming in to us so that we can
4 make an intelligent decision about our particulate SIP?
5 Is that correct?
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If I might, Ms. Edgerton, staff,
7 are you going to have the capability to determine, to
8 discriminate based upon size until it doesn't discriminate,
9 so we'll be able to tell; but can you segregate the
10 particulate matter that's caught in these samplers by size?
11 MR. LEW: Not for this -- Method 5 is a total
12 particulate method. Method 501 will be able to do the size
13 segregation. So, it is not one of the methods in discussion
14 today.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right.
16 MS. EDGERTON: The answer seems to be yes?
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes.
18 MR. LEW: Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The answer seems to be yes.
20 What I would appreciate, Mr. Kenny, is if you would get to
21 the Board what kind of monitoring capabilities, collection
22 capabilities we will have now as of the action -- presuming
23 it's a positive action here today -- what we will have and
24 how that position -- as Mr. Boyd said, the new "PMX"
25 standard, whatever it may be, so that we can have a sense of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
65
1 how much more equipment or monitoring systems we'll have to
2 have.
3 Ms. Edgerton, will that comfort you if we had that
4 information?
5 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. I appreciate that very much.
6 And I appreciate your putting my question more articulately.
7 And I guess I'd make just a friendly amendment to that, too.
8 As you -- as the staff reviews that and, as you look at
9 that, Mr. Kenny, if you do find that there's a need for some
10 guidelines or there's some way to give the districts some
11 advance notice -- or if there's something we can be doing to
12 help to make sure that we're not blind-sided in some way as
13 we ramp up to our responsibilities next year.
14 I would appreciate -- I would just suggest that
15 that be returned to the Board and the Chairman as well.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
18 MR. PARNELL: Mr. Chairman?
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure, Mr. Parnell.
20 The only caution I have for my colleagues, I just
21 wanted Mr. Schoning to give us an overview of the process
22 before we got too far into this. But I've opened it up, so
23 we'll just go. And, Jim, we'll come back to you.
24 Mr. Parnell.
25 MR. PARNELL: Perhaps he's answered my question.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
66
1 And I certainly applaud your efforts to be more uniform and
2 more consistent. Consistency is an issue that we all want
3 to work for.
4 I guess the overall -- the question that I would
5 have is, in the aggregate, across all the tests and the
6 changes you're making to the tests, is the result or are the
7 results diluted in any way? Is this a better result, or a
8 poorer result?
9 Are we making a change for the sake of consistency
10 or are we making changes because we believe we get a better
11 product?
12 MS. CAMERON: Well, as the engineering staff
13 there, our job is to get a better product. But when we
14 present it to you, we know you're interested in costs, also.
15 So, we highlighted those areas. We have worked
16 specifically on improving data quality, including new
17 measurement technology. And those are our goals.
18 MR. PARNELL: So, in your view, these changes will
19 result in a better result, in a better testing.
20 MS. CAMERON: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun.
22 MR. CALHOUN: My question pertains to consistency.
23 I note that the districts still have the option of adopting
24 their own test methods. In the event that that happens,
25 what do we do to try and maintain the consistency throughout
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
67
1 the State?
2 MR. LOSCUTOFF: Would you repeat that?
3 MR. CALHOUN: Since the local districts still have
4 the authority to adopt their own test methods, and since one
5 of the objectives of the proposed changes here is to have
6 some consistency, I'm wondering what do we do, as a State
7 agency, to try and make certain that whatever the district
8 adopts is consistent with the existing State regulating, or
9 maybe it's consistent with some other district regulation?
10 I'm just concerned about the consistency here.
11 MR. LOSCUTOFF: Okay. There are two aspects to
12 this. One is that we have worked very closely with the
13 districts in developing these methods; and with the concept
14 of working as a team, we will adopting method which they
15 would prefer to adopt without any changes. That would
16 promote consistency in itself.
17 Now, the other aspect of it is that, if the
18 districts do adopt regulations with -- of their own or test
19 methods on their own, there still is essentially an overview
20 process which occurs in that. If the method is applicable
21 to a regulation, which is necessary for a State
22 Implementation Plan, we still do have the opportunity to
23 review and make sure that it is consistent and performs the
24 way that it's supposed to perform for compliance purposes.
25 So, there's a two-step process there.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
68
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
2 MR. CALHOUN: I assume that's what would happen if
3 a local district wanted to adopt a test procedure, they
4 would consult with the State and get the benefit of their
5 input, also. I just wanted to get that on the record.
6 MR. LOSCUTOFF: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Ombudsman, would you
8 please address the process prior to today by which the staff
9 followed to bring this item to the Board, and share any
10 concerns or any comments you may have.
11 MR. SCHONING: Yes, Mr. Chairman and members.
12 As to the method by which these methods came to
13 us, the staff proposal, as they indicated, is the result of
14 several years of consultation with those parties that are
15 directly stakeholders to this item -- some 200 interested
16 companies, such as source test companies, contractors, and
17 trade groups.
18 A public workshop was conducted here in Sacramento
19 in December of 1995 for all proposed methods which are
20 before you today. A prior workshop was conducted in 1992 in
21 Sacramento.
22 In addition, ARB certified source test contractors
23 were requested to provide information on possible economic
24 impacts to them. I would also like to note that in December
25 of 1995, a workshop notice was placed on U.S. EPA's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
69
1 emissions measurement technology information center bulletin
2 board.
3 And, as a result, staff received a number of
4 comments from source tester companies through that channel.
5 It's my understanding that staff welcomed the efforts of the
6 representatives of source testing companies, and analytical
7 labs, and instrument manufacturers, and sharing their
8 experience and expertise. And, as a result, the ARB test
9 method proposals before you would improve our test method
10 procedures.
11 We have no concerns as to the process by which
12 these method were developed and brought before you today.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. It was
14 interesting to hear that the electronic bulletin board
15 system enhanced -- because we hear so much about people
16 accessing the process electronically. It's good to know.
17 Okay. Any other questions of staff? For my part,
18 just a comment. I appreciated the briefing that staff
19 provided me, and Mr. Loscutoff and his team were very, very
20 serious about the need to do this. And I appreciated the
21 manner in which they presented it to me, and trying to -- I
22 don't want to suggest "dumbing it down" for me, but going
23 into enough detail so I could grasp what the outcome was
24 going to be for the suggested changes today.
25 So with that, looking at the witness list, we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
70
1 don't have anyone that signed up. So, we can pass on that.
2 We've covered the written comments we received.
3 Mr. Kenny, I suppose you don't have anything else
4 to add?
5 MR. KENNY: No, Mr. Chair.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. I will now close the
7 record on this agenda item. However, the record will be
8 reopened when the 15-day notice of public availability is
9 issued. Written or oral comments received after this
10 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not
11 be accepted as part of the official record on this agenda
12 item.
13 When the record is reopened for the 15-day comment
14 period, the public may submit written comments on the
15 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
16 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
17 Also, we have an ex parte reporting obligation on
18 this item. Is there anything that needs to be reported?
19 Okay. With that, we have a Board resolution
20 before us, 96-7 -- let's see, do I have that right?
21 MR. PARNELL: Resolution 96-46.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Resolution 96-46 -- I'm sorry --
23 which contains the staff recommendation.
24 Mr. Parnell, do you have a motion?
25 MR. PARNELL: I'll move Resolution 96-46.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
71
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Is there a second?
2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Second.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Any discussion that
4 needs to occur?
5 All right. If not, we'll take a voice vote. All
6 those in favor of Resolution 96-46, say aye?
7 (Ayes.)
8 Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank
9 you.
10 All right. If I may move into a couple fun items
11 for a moment -- not that those weren't fun, staff, but --
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- I would like too cover a
14 couple things that we need to cover.
15 The first item, which I'll mention that I'm going
16 to take in just a moment is, we have a resolution we'd like
17 to present to Jim Boyd, our former Executive Officer.
18 But before we do that, I would like to cover one
19 that's more housekeeping in nature, and that's the Pollution
20 Prevention Week Resolution.
21 Pollution Prevention Week occurs -- it's been
22 around for a number of years -- it occurs the first or
23 second week of October. It is meaningful in many ways.
24 First, it dovetails very nicely with our mission of public
25 health protection; in that, if we can prevent pollution in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
72
1 the first place, we can derive a significant environmental
2 benefit.
3 And so, I suggested this year that we issue a
4 resolution that will be properly publicized. And certainly,
5 we'll support any efforts that Secretary Jim Strock
6 undertakes at Cal-EPA.
7 So, note also that Pollution Prevention Week
8 provides government businesses, environmental groups, and
9 others the opportunity to join forces for a common cause.
10 By sharing ideas, we can plan for a prosperous and healthy
11 future by reducing the amount of waste we generate.
12 So, I'd like to present the resolution to the
13 Board, hopefully for your positive consideration. And I've
14 asked Mayor Hilligoss to take a moment and read it aloud to
15 us.
16 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I have one question. You said
17 October, the second week in October. And in mine, it says
18 September.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I am wrong. I apologize. It's
20 September 16th through.
21 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: (Reading) State of California,
22 Air Resources Board, Resolution No. 96-53.
23 Whereas, Pollution Prevention Week, September 16th
24 through the 22nd, provides government agencies, businesses,
25 and the public an opportunity to come together to plan for a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
73
1 prosperous and sustainable future by renewing our common
2 commitment to conserve environmental resources and reduce
3 the amount of waste they generate;
4 Whereas, the Air Resources Board is dedicated to a
5 clean and healthy environment and is directed to coordinate
6 an intensive effort to protect and enhance California's air
7 quality;
8 Whereas, preventing pollution at the source for
9 minimizing the creation of wastestreams is often a far
10 cheaper and more effective way to reduce environmental risk
11 than add-on controls;
12 Whereas, use of alternative transportation,
13 including bicycles, buses, and zero-emission vehicles can
14 reduce air pollution caused by cars and trucks, which
15 contribute more than half of the ozone producing emissions
16 in California;
17 Whereas, pollution prevention can help
18 governmental agencies, businesses, and consumers use
19 resources more wisely and reduce waste disposal costs;
20 Whereas incentives for pollution prevention, such
21 as providing technology transfer information, education, and
22 outreach, and flexible control approaches represent
23 practical ways to develop an interactive public/private
24 partnership that will advance the frontier of pollution
25 prevention;
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
74
1 Now, therefore, be it resolved that the ARB
2 endorses Pollution Prevention Week and pledges that
3 pollution prevention shall continue to be an important
4 consideration in its air pollution control efforts in order
5 to reduce or eliminate the creation of air pollutants by the
6 most cost-effective means;
7 Be it further resolved that the Board direct staff
8 to consider integrated pollution prevention in all facets of
9 its daily operations and control activities;
10 Be it further resolved that the Board invites
11 industry to develop, propose, share, and practice pollution
12 prevention ideas and techniques which will help us achieve a
13 prosperous, healthy, and sustainable future, and to this end
14 invites testimony at future regulatory hearings regarding
15 pollution prevention as an alternative or supplement to
16 other air pollution control options.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mayor Hilligoss. I
18 appreciate your willingness to do that.
19 So, with that, I would entertain a motion to
20 approve this resolution.
21 Yes, Supervisor Roberts.
22 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
23 make a motion. I have just one quick question.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure.
25 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Are we 51 weeks ahead or one
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
75
1 week behind on this?
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: About three days behind. But
3 Mr. Kenny, if he were to respond to that, would say, "We
4 didn't have a Board meeting in August, we couldn't take it
5 up then. And July was too quick for us to be able to
6 respond."
7 Is that what you would say, Mr. Kenny?
8 MR. KENNY: You took the words right out of my
9 mouth.
10 (Laughter.)
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Mr. Roberts, did I
12 hear you make a motion?
13 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I was thinking of making it
14 for next year instead.
15 (Laughter.)
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It might cover both.
17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: You know, getting ahead of
18 the curve here, so we can actually invite these people.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right.
20 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'm a little embarrassed to
21 make a motion to invite people to participate in something
22 that took place last week.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, pollution prevent is more
24 than just a week-long event. It's an annual event. So,
25 I'll take that as a motion.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
76
1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: That's the intent, then.
2 This is only the first week in a year of pollution
3 prevention.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. Very good. Thank you,
5 Supervisor Roberts.
6 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: And I'll second that.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Supervisor Riordan
8 seconded it. Are there any comments? Lynne, do you have a
9 comment?
10 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. I agree on amending it to
11 reflect --
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It's an annual commitment on
13 behalf of the Board.
14 MS. EDGERTON: -- to reflect -- just so the record
15 will show that we know which week it is.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Well, we got that
17 straight.
18 All right. Any other discussion? All right.
19 With that, we'll take a voice vote on Resolution 96-53 for
20 pollution prevention.
21 All those in favor, say aye?
22 (Ayes.)
23 Any opposed? Very good. Thank you.
24 All right.
25 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Mr. Chairman?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
77
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Silva.
2 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I'd like to remind Supervisor
3 Roberts that there is always next year.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's right.
5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'll take that in stride.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The World Series is slipping
7 away from me, Jim.
8 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: It's not clear to me either
9 who represents Orange County with respect to professional
10 sports, but I'll keep that in mind.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: For those of you in the audience
12 that don't know, Supervisor Roberts is a tremendous San
13 Diego Padres fan. And he suffers --
14 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: We have both baseball and
15 football teams, Mr. Chairman.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's right. All right. We'll
17 go to the next item. And it's a special one for us. Could
18 I ask Mr. Boyd to come to the podium, and we'll have our
19 court reporter to have a paper change.
20 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause
21 in the proceedings.)
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: May I ask Supervisor Vagim to
23 join Jim?
24 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to
25 be selected to present this to Jim. I will have to ask Jim
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
78
1 Schoning if this has been done in a proper manner later.
2 But, indeed, when I came on the Air Resources Board in '94,
3 Mr. Boyd and the staff were more than -- more than helpful
4 in making a new fledgling person of this agency understand
5 the role of California clean air.
6 And it's a mixed emotion that I read and bid adieu
7 to Jim, but I know, as all servants to the California
8 services, as well as a good native Californian, he's going
9 to be around and be part of a lot of things that we do.
10 So, with this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read
11 this.
12 (Reading)
13 Pursuant to the authority vested in the California
14 Air Resources Board by Sections 39515 and 399516 of the
15 California Health & Safety Code, the Air Resources Board
16 declares that:
17 Whereas, Jim Boyd is leaving the Air Resources
18 Board after more than 20 successful years and productive
19 years, 15 of which were as the Executive Officer -- I
20 believe that's over four administrations; isn't that
21 correct, Jim?
22 And, whereas, Jim, through his dedication, skill,
23 and leadership deserves great credit for large air quality
24 improvements achieved in California by the Board's programs
25 over the past 20 years; and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
79
1 Whereas, ARB's world renowned reputation has been
2 enhanced under his leadership; and
3 Whereas, ARB's present recognition and premiere
4 can-do agency, based on sound science, pragmatic
5 engineering, technology forcing regulations is part of Jim's
6 legacy in securing for all Californians more healthful air;
7 and
8 Whereas, Jim earned his Bachelor's degree in
9 Business Administration with a minor in mechanical
10 engineering from the University of California at Berkeley;
11 and
12 Whereas, Jim's State career includes serving
13 Department of Water Resources, Health & Welfare Agency,
14 Department of Health, Department of Finance before finding a
15 home at ARB in 1976; and
16 Whereas, Jim has very successfully led ARB as a
17 deputy and as an Executive Officer through some of the
18 organization's most critical periods, during which he has
19 gained the respect of government and industry executives,
20 managers, and staff by his dedication, expertise, and
21 commitment to air quality issues; and
22 (Whereas, Jim has served as vice president on the
23 National Air and Waste Association's Board of Directors,
24 received the American Lung Association's Clean Air Globe
25 Award in 1993, served as a member of the Board of Directors
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
80
1 of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Administrators,
2 and is listed in Who's Who in Government, received the
3 Sacramento County's Chapter of American Society's Public
4 Administrators in 1996 Outstanding Public Administrator
5 Award, and served as the president of the California State
6 Fiscal Management Association, and belongs to the
7 Commonwealth Club; and
8 Whereas, Jim enjoys skiing from his cabin in
9 Tahoe, boating from the Delta, and bike riding in the annual
10 American Lung Association's bike trek; and
11 Whereas, the whole ARB family thanks Jim for his
12 expert leadership, dedication, and friendship over two
13 decades;
14 Now, therefore, be it resolved that we wish Jim
15 success in his future endeavors and thank him for his
16 exemplary service to the Air Resources Board and the people
17 of California.
18 Jim, thank you.
19 MR. BOYD: Thank you very much, Doug.
20 (Standing ovation.)
21 MR. BOYD: Thank you very much, members of the
22 Board. And thank you, Doug, for making the presentation. I
23 really didn't expect to be back here. I said my farewells
24 to the Board at the July 25th meeting, and said -- I think I
25 told you at that time and the staff what tremendous regard I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
81
1 had for all of you and the feelings I had for the
2 organization.
3 And I think my statement at that time has been
4 distributed to all of you in the past. So, I won't repeat
5 that. I will say that a lot has happened since July 25th in
6 the nature of farewells, farewell events. And all they have
7 done for me is just reinforced the good feelings and the
8 affection that I have for the staff, the Board, and this
9 program.
10 You almost have to leave to take the time to
11 reflect back and to have people tell you and to make you
12 feel extraordinarily good about what you've been doing with
13 your life.
14 I am more proud than ever that I worked here at
15 the Air Resources Board with all the wonderful people.
16 And finally, I'd just say I'm aware that earlier
17 this morning, it was announced that the U.S. EPA had
18 approved the '94 ozone SIP. This is, I'm sure as was stated
19 then, a major accomplishment. I'm rather gratified that is
20 surrendipitously happened today. It's something all of you,
21 Board and staff, should be proud of, because I think you all
22 know how the Board and staff worked itself literally into
23 the ground to meet this task, and got it done. And
24 unfortunately, it took two years to get it approved, but got
25 it approved, which is monumental. And it's probably the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
82
1 only one ever approved.
2 So, that's something that you should feel good
3 about. I was very pleased when U.S. EPA called me at home
4 yesterday morning early, confidentially, to tell me they
5 were going to do this and wanted me to be among the first to
6 know, since I had sat across the table from them for so
7 long, in a friendly, adversarial way, trying to get this
8 thing done with many members of the staff.
9 So, it's a banner day. And again, I thank you for
10 your kind words, for the opportunity to have dinner with
11 some of you last night, and I thank the staff for weeks, and
12 weeks, and weeks of farewell. It's been extremely
13 gratifying, and I appreciate it very much.
14 And as I said last time, I wish you the best. As
15 a fourth generation Californian, I'm desperate that you
16 continue to do the job you've done for the sake of all of
17 us. And, again, thank you for this recognition. And, as I
18 said many times before, thanks to everybody for the
19 memories. It's been wonderful.
20 Thank you.
21 (Laughter.)
22 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Jim, don't leave. I apologize
23 for not being there last night. United did not cooperate
24 with my travel schedule. And I really wish that I could
25 have been.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
83
1 I wondered if we ought to amend the resolution to
2 add a "whereas" under the recreational portion to include
3 mountain climbing, and whether you'd like comment on that.
4 MR. BOYD: Well, I would just say that I hate to
5 make this comment, because whereas, a year ago, your new
6 Executive Officer, and I, and other ARB staffers
7 successfully climbed Mt. Whitney, and then named ourselves
8 the Whitney Group, this last weekend we failed in an attempt
9 to climb another mountain.
10 I shouldn't say we failed, because we didn't even
11 try. It was so hard to get to the base of the mountain
12 itself, that there was no hope of ever climbing it. So, we
13 just abandoned the idea. And I think we all learned a
14 lesson about planning for the future. But thank you, Jack.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Jim. One comment, and
16 I'll make this story about me. Never suggest to Jim that
17 he's retired. Because he continually reminds me he's not;
18 that he's much too young for that. So, don't make the
19 mistake I make to comment on being retired.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Before you go, Mr. Boyd, I wanted
21 to make a comment since I wasn't here in July -- and I don't
22 know if other Board members had an opportunity, but one of
23 the wiser comments that I have heard said before, and I
24 apologize for not having looked up the exact author, with
25 respect to definitions of greatness, is that a person's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
84
1 greatness is determined by the number of individuals whose
2 lives he or she has influenced for the better during their
3 lives.
4 And your leadership for California, for
5 Sacramento, for the nation, and for the world puts you in
6 that category of a great man. And thank you.
7 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Ms Edgerton. Appreciate it.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well said, thanks.
9 Thank you, Jim, for coming back today. I
10 appreciate it. Well said, Lynne.
11 Okay. With that, we'll move on to the final two
12 items we have today.
13 The next item on the agenda is 96-7-3, which is a
14 public hearing to consider amendments to the hydrocarbon and
15 oxides of nitrogen emission standards for 1995 and later
16 utility and lawn and garden equipment engines used in
17 snowthrowers and ice augers, and too the carbon monoxide
18 standard for '96 through '98 for off-highway recreational
19 vehicles and engines.
20 We have before us a petition for the Board to
21 amend the emission control regs for 1995 and later utility
22 lawn and garden equipment engines used in the snowthrowers
23 and ice augers in response to a petition from industry.
24 In addition, staff proposes to amend the emissions
25 control regs for the 1996 through '96 off-highway
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
85
1 recreational vehicles and engines.
2 I can attest that this item, while important,
3 represents a relatively small impact on emissions. And I am
4 pleased with the preparation that the staff has put in to
5 bring this item to us.
6 So, with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to begin
7 the staff's brief presentation.
8 MR. KENNY: Thank you. And I will be brief.
9 Presented here is really a straightforward item
10 with limited scope. Industry submitted a petition which
11 requested that snowthrowers and ice augers be exempt from
12 hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen standards due to their
13 wintertime operation -- essentially, the non-ozone season.
14 Staff concurs with the request. In addition,
15 staff is proposing a minor regulatory change to the carbon
16 monoxide standard for off-highway recreational vehicles and
17 engines which utilize the same utility engines as lawn and
18 garden equipment for which the Board granted a similar
19 carbon monoxide standard revision earlier this year.
20 Both changes will make our standards more
21 consistent with those of the U.S. EPA.
22 Fernando Amador from the Mobile Source Division
23 will now make a short presentation.
24 Mr. Amador?
25 MR. AMADOR: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
86
1 Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board, staff is
2 proposing two straightforward regulatory amendments which
3 are of a minor nature.
4 The first proposal is to revise the requirements
5 for 1995 and later utility engines used in snowthrowers and
6 ice augers to make the previously adopted hydrocarbon and
7 oxides of nitrogen standards optional.
8 The second proposal is to revise the carbon
9 monoxide standard for 1996 through 1998 off-highway
10 recreational vehicles under 25 horsepower, categorized as
11 specialty vehicles.
12 I will begin with the snowthrower proposal. On or
13 about March 28th, 1996, ARB received a petition from the
14 Tecumseh and Toro Companies seeking to align the California
15 utility regulations with the Federal utility engine rule.
16 Under the Federal regulations, manufacturers of
17 engines used in snowthrowers and ice augers may certify
18 engines only to CO standards and be exempt from HC and NOx
19 requirements.
20 In so adopting the rule, the United States
21 Environmental Protection Agency concluded that HC and NOx
22 standards were unnecessary for this equipment because they
23 are used in the winter and their emissions do not contribute
24 to summertime ozone concentrations.
25 Tecumseh and Toro contend that the present
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
87
1 California regulations, which would require manufacturers to
2 produce different product lines for national and California
3 sales may force snowthrowers and ice augers out of the
4 California marketplace.
5 The high cost of producing separate product lines
6 for California and the relatively small sales volume
7 involved would be too economically burdensome for
8 manufacturers. Consequently, there would be adverse impacts
9 for retailers, consumers, and the environment.
10 California retailers would no longer market this
11 equipment. With no new snowthrowers and ice auger products
12 available in California, consumers would likely repair and
13 rebuild their uncontrolled units beyond their customary
14 practice in order to extend their service life.
15 This could cause continued higher CO emissions in
16 localities where CO is a primary air quality concern.
17 Consequently, staff recommends that the HC and NOx emission
18 standards be made optional for engine used in snowthrowers
19 and ice augers.
20 This action would effectively align California
21 standards with Federal standards, and manufacturers may
22 still opt to meet the HC and NOx standards to take advantage
23 of any green marketing opportunities.
24 The second regulatory proposal is to revise the CO
25 standard for specialty vehicles from 300 grams per brake
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
88
1 horsepower hour to 350, applicable to model years 1996
2 through 1998.
3 To correct a minor error in the staff report which
4 states that the proposed revision would apply to the 1996
5 through 1998 "calendar" years, the correct terminology is
6 the 1996 through 998 "model" years.
7 I will now provide a brief background. On or
8 about July 26, 1995, the Briggs & Stratton Corporation
9 petitioned ARB to revise the CO standard for utility engines
10 used in lawn and garden equipment in order to avoid
11 potential performance problems and high warranty costs with
12 certain low-cost lawnmower engine models.
13 In addition, the revised CO standard would
14 harmonize California with the Federal utility engine
15 standard. In January, 1996, the Board adopted the revised
16 350 gram per brake horsepower hour standard for the 1996
17 through 1998 lawn and garden equipment engines.
18 These same engines are also used in specialty
19 vehicles, such as golf carts, go-carts, and groundskeeping
20 vehicles.
21 Therefore, staff is now proposing to revise the CO
22 standard to 350 grams per brake horsepower hour for these
23 1996 through 1998 vehicles as well.
24 Because specialty vehicles under 25 horsepower use
25 the same engines as those used in lawn and garden equipment,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
89
1 amendment of the standard would relieve the manufacturers
2 from unnecessarily having to develop separate engines for
3 specialty vehicles in the California market, which may be
4 subject to performance problems.
5 This proposal would ensure that customer
6 acceptable vehicles would be available to the California
7 market.
8 The air quality impacts from both regulatory
9 proposals should be minimal if not negligible. Overriding
10 economic considerations exist to justify the optional HC and
11 NOx standards for snowthrowers and ice augers and the
12 revised CO standard for specialty vehicles.
13 Both proposals also provide greater consistency
14 with other California and Federal regulations.
15 One written comment was submitted from Collier,
16 Shannon, Rill & Scott, representing the Outdoor Power
17 Equipment Institute and the Engine Manufacturers
18 Association. Basically, they support staff's proposal.
19 This concludes my presentation. We will now be
20 happy to answer any of your questions.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Staff, did you receive any
22 letters or comments at all other than the Briggs & Stratton
23 letter on this item?
24 MR. AMADOR: No. That was the only comment we
25 got.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
90
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you. Mr.
2 Schoning?
3 MR. SCHONING: Mr. Chairman, the two distinct
4 elements before the Board, as staff indicated, rise from a
5 desire to bring our existing standards into conformance with
6 Federal standards.
7 The fist comes from a petition from Tecumseh and
8 Toro Companies and the small California businesses who
9 market their snowthrowers and ice augers. And by adopting
10 this change, the hydrocarbon and NOx standards will become
11 optional, and the results would conform with the Federal
12 standards.
13 The second, as indicated, is a clean-up item,
14 which stems from the Board's action last January 25th,
15 affecting utility and lawn and garden CO standards. And
16 the proposed change would extend the previous approved
17 standard of 350 grams per brake horsepower hour for utility
18 engines to similar engines in specialty vehicles like golf
19 carts and go-carts.
20 An informational notice of this hearing contained
21 the required materials and was sent to approximately a
22 thousand individuals and organizations that either have or
23 may have an interest in these regulations.
24 The mail-out reached manufacturers, distributors,
25 retailers, consultants, and associations, as well as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
91
1 individual citizens.
2 This notice was sent in conformance with our
3 45-day conformance requirement for this hearing, today's
4 hearing.
5 We've received -- we're aware of no written
6 comments in receipt either in favor or opposition to this
7 proposal. It's our understanding that no workshop was
8 conducted before proposing these regulations. In part, this
9 reflects the immediacy of the issue since the intent is to
10 allow this regulatory modification to affect this winter's
11 sales of snowthrowers and ice augers.
12 Additionally, the decision to waive a workshop
13 reflects staff's belief that these are minor adjustments to
14 regulations, contacts with interested parties suggest
15 support. The impacts are favorable to industry and to
16 consumers.
17 The changes were proposed again to conform our
18 regulations with Federal standards, and the changes clean up
19 some of our existing regulations. While there were no
20 public hearings, we have no concerns under those
21 circumstances.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schoning.
23 You said there were a thousand folks notified?
24 MR. SCHONING: That's correct.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Any questions
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
92
1 any of the Board members have of staff on this item?
2 Mr. Cross, if I could ask you a question on the
3 emissions. One of the things we, as members of this Board,
4 are concerned with -- and I know you are, too, and Mr.
5 Cackette has this emblazoned on my mind -- because he makes
6 this point all the time. We're not in the business of
7 forgiving emissions reductions, in that we need to get the
8 tons.
9 What is the bottom line? I heard "de minimis." I
10 heard "small."
11 Tell me what we're looking at here.
12 MR. CROSS: The sales that we're talking about are
13 like hundreds.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: In the hundreds? For these, for
15 snowthrowers and ice augers?
16 MR. CROSS: Right.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: For California. Okay.
18 MR. CROSS: And we're talking about tenths of
19 hundreds of a ton. That's my recollection. Have you got
20 the exact number (speaking to colleague)?
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Just be a little bit more
22 definitive than small or de minimis.
23 MR. CROSS: Yes, it's a tenth of a ton per day --
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. that answers my --
25 MR. CROSS: -- for snowthrowers.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
93
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Oh, for snowthrowers. All
2 right. Ice augers would probably be even less for ice
3 augers.
4 MR. CROSS: No, it's snowthrowers and ice augers.
5 I was including both in that.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, it truly is de
7 minimis.
8 MR. CROSS: Very small.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Any questions --
10 MR. CROSS: And off season.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any questions of staff?
12 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I just have a question.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Vagim.
14 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: When we were dealing with this
15 some time ago, the issue came up of personal hand-held
16 posthole diggers. And that's never come back around to be
17 an issue then?
18 MR. CROSS: No, it has not.
19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, they're going to be able
20 too meet our standards and not have a marketing problem?
21 MR. CROSS: As far as I am aware, that's true.
22 There's not a marketing problem with those.
23 MR. CROSS: Because of the weight issue and that
24 kind of stuff became a concern.
25 MR. CROSS: Yeah. My recollection is -- this one
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
94
1 is far enough off the subject, so I'll need to extract. But
2 my recollection was that those would be preempt as far as
3 farm and construction equipment, so they would be using
4 Federal engines in California.
5 But I'll need to check and get back to you.
6 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Yeah. I think there was some
7 question at the time. So, okay.
8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. But certainly, with
10 the certainly with the mailout, folks know, because of this
11 action, they have an opportunity to come back to us and ask
12 for similar consideration if there is a real concern.
13 All right. Ms. Hutchens, we have no one that
14 signed up to testify?
15 MS. HUTCHENS: No.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good. Then, I
17 guess we'll close the record.
18 Since all testimony, written submissions and staff
19 comments for this item have been entered in the record and
20 the Board has not granted an extension of the comment
21 period, I'm officially closing the record on this portion of
22 Agenda Item No. 96-7-3.
23 Written or oral comments received after the
24 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as part
25 of the official record on this agenda item.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
95
1 We also have an obligation under ex parte
2 communication. Is there anything that we have to report?
3 All right.
4 Very good. We have a resolution before us, 96-47.
5 We've had it for a few moments. But I know that it contains
6 the staff recommendation. And the Chair would entertain a
7 motion and a second.
8 MR. CALHOUN: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Calhoun.
10 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Second.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And Supervisor Riordan. Thank
12 you.
13 Any discussion that needs to occur? Okay.
14 With that, we'll do a voice vote. All those in
15 favor, say aye?
16 (Ayes.)
17 Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries.
18 All right. Which brings us to our last item.
19 Thank you, Mr. Cross, you and Tom, and your team
20 on that as well.
21 As staff are changing positions, I'll introduce
22 this item.
23 96-7-4 are research proposals. This next item of
24 business before the Board are five specific research
25 proposals.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
96
1 We get these proposals in advance. It's my hope
2 that we've all had a chance to review them. Several of the
3 members of the Board availed themselves of in-depth
4 briefings on these items with Dr. Holmes and Mr. Cackette.
5 I personally had my briefing within the last week.
6 Just kind of a running commentary. Supervisor Roberts, and
7 we've given him probably more credit for this than he
8 desires, has impressed upon staff the need overhead rates
9 down, to make sure that we are in touch with those that are
10 proposing these research efforts to make sure we get the
11 most we can for the State's dollars.
12 And I've been pleased to report to you all that
13 staff has heard that loud and clear. And that is always one
14 of the first items they cover when any briefing is given,
15 certainly to me, on outside research contracts.
16 So, with that, are there any comments or concerns
17 anyone has on any of these research proposals?
18 I've asked Dr. Holmes -- maybe I'll start it off.
19 Not that I'm looking for a lot here necessarily, but I'd ask
20 Dr. Holmes, if you wouldn't mind, on the item, the $500,000
21 plus item that you have, if you wouldn't mind, if you'd give
22 an overview on that just for a moment, John, I'd be
23 grateful.
24 DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of
25 the Board, good morning.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
97
1 The Chairman is referring to Item No. 4 of the
2 research proposals. This is an interagency agreement with
3 the University of California, Riverside. It's a fair piece
4 of change to put it mildly. It's nearly $600,000 over a
5 three-year span.
6 But I think the return that the Board is going to
7 receive on this investment is many, many times that amount
8 of money.
9 This is the subject of fine particle
10 concentrations; fine particle chemical composition is one
11 that you're going to be hearing about certainly as long as
12 you're on this Board and well beyond that as far as future
13 Boards are concerned.
14 Solving the PM10 or PM2.5, whatever it turns out
15 to be, problem is going to be at least an order of magnitude
16 more difficult than the situation we faced with ozone.
17 This research team at U.C. Riverside will be
18 working in conjunction with several other research projects
19 that we and the and the U.S. EPA have underway. In the
20 current year, we'll be working with Professor Glenn Cass at
21 Cal Tech to analyze particulate matter in the South Coast
22 Air Basin.
23 Later on, we'll be looking at other forms of
24 particulate matter in other places in the State. These
25 instruments will be deployed in our Southern California
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
98
1 study in 1997, and then finally in the San Joaquin Valley in
2 1998.
3 The Research Screening Committee has placed a
4 special watch on this project. There are reports to be
5 delivered to them at the end of year one and at the end of
6 year two. And the Committee will -- at those times, the
7 Committee will recommend to you if they believe the project
8 should be cut off because it's not proving to yield the
9 benefits that we all expect it to yield.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Holmes, on that point, I'm
11 anticipating Ms. Edgerton's ultimate question, which is
12 going to be, how does this research -- what's the bottom
13 line relative to how it's going to position us relative to
14 any new standard?
15 We're going to know more, we're going to have the
16 most current information, the best data of anyplace in the
17 country? I mean, is that in line with where you think we're
18 going to be?
19 DR. HOLMES: Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, as
20 probably Ms. Edgerton knows, all of the ways that we now
21 have to sample particulate matter from the air and to
22 analyze it have drawbacks.
23 Now, this instrument, from what we've already
24 learned by using it in a laboratory setting, does not have
25 any of those drawbacks. It takes in one particular at a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
99
1 time, measures its size and mass, and then analyzes it
2 chemically; tells us exactly what's in it and what elements
3 of PM match up with what other elements, which gives us
4 information about the source.
5 It does this one particle at a time, and it does
6 600 particles per second. So that, in gathering these
7 massive amounts of data, you get information about what
8 we're breathing in the air without its having been perturbed
9 by any sort of sampling or analysis method. We know which
10 chemicals match up with which other chemicals, so you know,
11 have information about the source of those particles.
12 And all of this massive amount of information can
13 be analyzed very nearly in realtime by the computer system
14 that goes along with this mass spectrometer system.
15 So, I think it represents, in our view, a real
16 breakthrough in -- I don't use that word often. But it's a
17 real breakthrough in the field of suspended particle
18 research.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And it's a three-year --
20 DR. HOLMES: It's a three-year --
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- total of 596 for three years,
22 Dr. Holmes?
23 DR. HOLMES: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. For my part,
25 I appreciate that brief overview, John.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
100
1 Supervisor Vagim.
2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 John, a couple questions. The individual cost I
4 see is $10,000 per year. Is that the annual maintenance on
5 this machine?
6 DR. HOLMES: Is that on the --
7 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I presume this is developing
8 the prototype of this analyzer; is that correct? The actual
9 grant?
10 DR. HOLMES: The instrument itself was originally
11 conceived and developed by the principal investigator here.
12 We had an earlier contract with U.C. Riverside to test if
13 further and to build a transportable version of it, two
14 transportable instruments that we can move around the State.
15 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Is this producing one or more?
16 DR. HOLMES: I'm sorry?
17 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Is this grant producing one or
18 more of these transportable devices?
19 DR. HOLMES: They already exist.
20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Retrofitting them, is that --
21 DR. HOLMES: We're just going to deploy them and
22 analyze data, interpret it. It's already been used.
23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. In other words, the data
24 collection devices are in place.
25 DR. HOLMES: Yes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
101
1 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: All this is going to do is take
2 the data and analyze the data.
3 DR. HOLMES: Yes. From all of the various places,
4 along with all the various projects that I've mentioned.
5 It'll be in the San Joaquin. It'll be in the South Coast
6 Air Basin. It'll be in the desert areas of the State. And
7 we've done some work in actually measuring automobile and
8 truck exhaust, too.
9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: But, if I remember correctly
10 from the San JoaquIn study, we are getting this type of
11 breakout already. Is the principal investigator and the
12 subcontractors using some of their own equipment or
13 something, a device, by outside --
14 DR. HOLMES: The San Joaquin project is certainly
15 getting a lot of data on PM or will be. That's the whole
16 point of it. But not until this instrument is deployed,
17 under this contract, will they be getting the kind of data
18 that I spoke of.
19 This is unique. It's brand new and it's unique in
20 its ability to tell us what's in suspended particulate
21 matter.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And it's fast.
23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Just to follow up so that I
24 clearly understand.
25 You say an instrument. So basically, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
102
1 instrument will be taking the data and it'll be an
2 instrument breaking the data down into what you just defined
3 as a more precise readout; is that correct?
4 DR. HOLMES: Yes.
5 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, the field collection
6 devices are precise enough to be able to read back to the
7 instrument so their instrument can shake hands with it and
8 says, "I know what you have." Right? I mean, you don't
9 want to have something so gross on the field collection that
10 the instrument can't break it apart.
11 Or are we basically taking field samples into the
12 instrument?
13 DR. HOLMES: No. That's the beauty, one of the
14 beauties of it, Supervisor Vagim, is that it measures
15 particles in the air as they exist in the air without any
16 intervening filter or laboratory analytical technique.
17 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, this will be a field
18 instrument then.
19 DR. HOLMES: Yes.
20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. But there's only going
21 to be one of them?
22 DR. HOLMES: No, there are two.
23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Two now.
24 DR. HOLMES: Two portable versions.
25 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Two portable versions. Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
103
1 And they could be adapted to others off of this technology,
2 or will we have to start over again?
3 In other words, what I'm asking is, will we be
4 able to build other ones off of this?
5 DR. HOLMES: The design and construction of these
6 systems -- they're integrated systems, the analyzer and the
7 computer all in one package -- were actually paid for by the
8 Board. So, that was an investment of about $300,000 as I
9 recall.
10 Now, this is the payoff from that investment.
11 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. But again, will we pay
12 $500,000 again for two more?
13 DR. HOLMES: No. We're not going to buy any more.
14 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. But if we wanted two
15 more, would we pay $500,000 more?
16 DR. HOLMES: That would have to be a separate
17 arrangement of some sort.
18 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, we're not going to get any
19 bang for the buck here, huh?
20 DR. HOLMES: We're going to get two -- these two
21 instruments will belong to the Air Resources Board.
22 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay.
23 DR. HOLMES: That's a standard provision of all of
24 our contracts. Any equipment that is purchased or
25 constructed under our sponsorship reverts to our -- we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
104
1 retain title to it.
2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I guess what I'm getting at,
3 are we getting some benefit out of the research and paying
4 for the R & D part of this in not having to pay for it
5 again, or is this basically always going to be building a
6 custom car, so to speak, and everytime you want one you've
7 got to pay all over again for that custom car?
8 Is there going to be some benefits from this type
9 of investment? If we want more of these, they'll be a lot
10 cheaper because we spent this money here?
11 DR. HOLMES: I don't know. Perhaps Mr. Van Curen
12 could speak to that issue. These have a price tag that's
13 somewhat higher than a standard kind of instrument that we
14 use in the field. But I know that a number of other
15 laboratories are interested in having them.
16 I don't know what she plans to do, the
17 investigator plans to do as far as building them.
18 MR. VAN CUREN: These instruments were built at
19 Riverside based on refinements to a prototype that was built
20 under other funding. So, the real hard R & D -- getting it
21 to work in the first place -- was not paid for by us. We
22 paid for the engineering and construction of the portable
23 versions. So, there's now three of these instruments in
24 existence. One is fixed in a laboratory and two portables.
25 The probable future of these instruments is that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
105
1 some instrument manufacturer will pick up a license to the
2 design and turn them out, and they probably will be mass
3 produced for somewhere around $100,000 each, I would expect.
4 Whereas, because of the very low cost and very high skill
5 levels of the student labor available to us at Riverside, we
6 were able to build these for about $160,000 each. If we had
7 gone out to an independent contractor, it probably would
8 have cost us, you know -- a commercial builder would have,
9 assuming they had the design in hand, it probably would have
10 cost us substantially more.
11 But these instruments we expect will proliferate
12 over them. But they are definitely a research scale
13 instrument. It would be difficult to imagine that we would
14 ever own a large number of them. But I know that Ford and
15 others have expressed great interest in acquiring them for
16 their own research programs. And I think it's very likely
17 there will be a license issued to build more of these.
18 But we do not anticipate owning more than two,
19 because we feel that, for our research needs, we can handle
20 the data flow from two, but we haven't really got a good
21 program in mind that would require more of those at this
22 time.
23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, the grant basically is
24 paying for the retrofitting and adaptation of these devices?
25 MR. CACKETTE: If you would look over on page 632
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
106
1 in the budget breakdown, I think we can add a little clarity
2 to this.
3 Of the contract, only $42,000 is for equipment.
4 The rest is labor. So, this is paying people to deploy the
5 existing instruments into the field over two or more of
6 major studies like this other -- like the San Joaquin Valley
7 study and other Southern California oxidants study, where
8 they'll be in the field running the equipment and collecting
9 the data.
10 So, it's principally a labor contract. And it
11 will support activities that are related to these bigger
12 field studies that we're doing now, so it would pay money
13 through this contract instead of having to pay it in the San
14 Joaquin Valley study or through some of the other oxidant
15 particulate studies.
16 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. Has this been analyzed
17 from an administrative point of view that it is not
18 duplicating what the San Joaquin Valley study's already
19 done? Is it getting new data?
20 MR. VAN CUREN: Actually, what we hope to do --
21 one of the things we intend to do with these instruments is
22 to understand more fully the artifacts and modifications to
23 particles that occur when they're sampled on filters so that
24 we'll have a better way to understand and interpret the
25 results of the conventional sampling type systems that are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
107
1 in use. For example, the various samplers being used in the
2 San Joaquin study.
3 The equipment budget in this project of that
4 $40,000, that involved buying some instruments for parallel
5 operation, so that we can fully characterize how those less
6 expensive technologies and what they do and do not measure.
7 MR. BARHAM: And perhaps -- Bob Barham, Research
8 Division. To be a little more specific, I know that in the
9 San Joaquin Valley, there are a couple types of monitoring
10 techniques that are being used. TEOMs is one example. And
11 we know, using the TEOM technology that a certain amount of
12 sample is lost and not accounted for in collecting those
13 samples. What this device will enable us to do is account
14 for those lost samples. So, it really is a very different
15 kind of monitoring technique that will add to the
16 information that we're collecting through sampling, such as
17 TEOMs or collecting on filters.
18 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Will this also do speciation,
19 or is that going to. . .
20 MR. BARHAM: It also does the speciation, which is
21 another very powerful piece of this work.
22 To go back to the original question of $10,000,
23 spread over the three years, that $30,000 budget item, we
24 basically there have a set amount of the maintenance of the
25 equipment, and that's what that 10,000 is going for per
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
108
1 year.
2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay.
3 MR. BARHAM: Over the three years.
4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Very good. Thank you very
5 much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Calhoun, then Ms.
7 Edgerton.
8 MR. CALHOUN: I want to have the staff correct me
9 if I am wrong here. But this is really kind of the next
10 stage of some work that we already funded; is it not?
11 DR. HOLMES: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Calhoun.
12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. I was not at the last
13 Research Screening Committee meeting, because I had another
14 meeting scheduled on the same day and I couldn't attend this
15 one.
16 But what were some of the concerns of the Research
17 Screening Committee members that would cause them to place a
18 special watch on this particular project?
19 DR. HOLMES: Because it represents such a large
20 investment on the part of the Board. They feel a strong
21 sense of stewardship over the dollars that they recommend
22 you commit.
23 And they also -- since it is a new technique,
24 since it holds such great promise, they want to be sure that
25 those promises are fulfilled. And they're concerned that it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
109
1 might not work as well as we expect to; that it might be too
2 complicated or too sensitive to be out in the field and
3 carried around in a truck.
4 Those are their concerns.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If I might maybe round that out.
6 When we had -- if you may recall in July, we had a lunch
7 with them. And I overheard and participated in several
8 conversations where the Board was talking to the Research
9 Screening Committee about making sure that cost-
10 effectiveness is a criterion they were looking at, making
11 sure that there are adequate touch-points where we can come
12 back and get deliverables; that people don't get multi-year
13 arrangements without any kind of accountability.
14 And so, their wanting to have an increased
15 assurance that things are on track, I view it as a good
16 thing, not as a kind of difficult situation for staff, but
17 just telling staff, "Hey look it. We heard what the Board's
18 priorities are, and you've got to spend money wisely and
19 make sure we don't get taken for a ride."
20 And by the way, I must apologize to staff for
21 bringing up this item and highlighting it so much. I didn't
22 mean to get into a long discourse about it, but merely to
23 let the Board know that items of this dollar value and of
24 this import are getting the type of attention at least that
25 I am counting on the staff to provide to it. And again,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
110
1 that's a positive thing.
2 Did you have anything, Joe?
3 MR. CALHOUN: No. I guess if you hadn't
4 highlighted it, it would have come up anyway because I was
5 already looking at it.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right, staff. So, don't
7 blame me for this.
8 Ms. Edgerton.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I would like to talk a little
10 bit -- get a little bit of feedback from you with respect to
11 our work. And it may be that you want to just provide an
12 update later, but ARB research on and participation in the
13 U.S. EPA Scientific Advisory Committee process for revising
14 PM10 standards and looking at the health consequences of
15 particulates.
16 I apologize for not knowing fully -- it's my
17 responsibility -- I'm asking, do we have -- do we have a
18 body of research that will enable us to independently
19 evaluate this proposal?
20 DR. HOLMES: The EPA proposal on the new fine
21 particle standard? Is that the issue?
22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
23 DR. HOLMES: Yes. Yes, we do. We have ambient
24 monitoring data and other data that will help us look
25 critically at whatever comes out of this long, long process
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
111
1 that they've been involved in. As far as the Science
2 Advisory Board is concerned, we don't hold a seat on that,
3 but we do attend meetings when there are issues of interest
4 to us, and particularly the meetings of the Clean Air
5 Science Advisory Committee, which is really a subcommittee
6 of the Science Advisory Board.
7 We've been to those meetings and have -- while we
8 haven't presented any testimony, we do listen carefully to
9 what said and form our own views on what the EPA staff are
10 proposing.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I --
12 DR. HOLMES: And it's a long, long story, Ms.
13 Edgerton. I'd be happy to tell it to you, but I think
14 perhaps this might not be the best time.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Okay. That's good. Because I --
16 now that the SIP is approved, it's my expectation that there
17 is nothing that will so focus attention as the effect of
18 particulates on human health and the likely revision of the
19 standard, whether it should be done here or whether we will
20 support that, whether -- and whether it will have an
21 economic and environmentally beneficial effect on
22 California. All of those -- all of those issues are
23 steaming right up.
24 I remember last time when we did the ozone SIP,
25 one of the things that was of considerable concern to me and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
112
1 that I think I learned was a different way to do it, it was
2 that the South Coast was very critical of the Air Board for
3 not having released in advance at least a draft of what we
4 thought the additional motor vehicle regulations and
5 consumer regulation revisions would be in order to achieve
6 Federal standards.
7 And so, they felt that they were somewhat at sea
8 as they were releasing their documents, because they didn't
9 know what we were thinking about. And it resulted in a lot
10 of public attention, especially in Southern California, a
11 lot of criticism back and forth. And I think it was not
12 great for the public, because it did erode public confidence
13 in us at the Air Board, because the South Coast was being
14 very critical of us for not having gotten ahead of the game
15 there.
16 Now, of course, the South Coast is suffering, in
17 my view, from a considerable lack of credibility as a result
18 of a couple of their announcements. I mean I'm just being
19 quite frank. And it has no reason -- I mean the emperor has
20 no clothes or else the emperor does have clothes, one or the
21 other.
22 I mean this is just something that's happened.
23 And so, I think we need to look at it, and we need to be
24 ready that -- ready ahead of time, to be thinking through
25 the strategy. I'm sure you are. You always are.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
113
1 But I just wanted to add my recognition of where
2 we are, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thanks, Ms. Edgerton. I
4 think that the staff, certainly if they're not, will become
5 very shortly poised to be able to respond to anything the
6 Federal Government might do with any of the new standards,
7 whether they be ozone or particulate matter.
8 All right. I'd like to move on this item. We
9 have a couple quick -- yes, Mr. Parnell.
10 MR. PARNELL: You promised, remember?
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I did promise.
12 MR. PARNELL: I want to compliment Dr. Holmes and
13 his staff. It seems to me -- you can correct me if I'm
14 wrong, but as I have visited the PM -- we affectionately
15 refer to it as PM10 -- but the particulate issue, that one
16 of the things that we really need to do is to understand
17 speciation. It's going to take us a long ways to understand
18 there is particulate matter and there's particulate matter.
19 This is going to help us to understand the
20 constituencies of this particulate matter so as to be able
21 to, when we get to the regulatory stage, allocate
22 responsibility in a correct and appropriate way.
23 And you don't need to respond if I'm kind of half
24 right. And I think I am. We'll leave it there. But I
25 really applaud the research staff for having been so
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
114
1 insightful in moving in this direction. And that goes way
2 back to the development of this particular machine.
3 So, congratulations.
4 DR. HOLMES: Thank you.
5 MR. PARNELL: I think this takes us an awful long
6 way --
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right.
8 MR. PARNELL: -- to understand the issue of
9 particulate matter in general. And I applaud it.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Parnell. Also,
11 just a reminder to staff. I know you know this well.
12 Supervisor Vagim and Mr. Parnell have been very, very active
13 with the ag community to make sure that they understand what
14 we're doing as far as the studies and the coordination.
15 And I think what you're hearing from these two
16 gentlemen in particular is that there's a need to, you
17 know, be hand in glove with the work that's going on in the
18 San Joaquin area in particular, and make sure that we're
19 letting the world know that we're looking at trying to
20 understand the science of particulate matter emissions
21 better so that we will be positioned, as Lynne said herself
22 a moment ago, to be able to deal with the regulatory
23 implications of what we find out.
24 So, with that --
25 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman, just a quick --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
115
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Vagim.
2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: And if it is -- if PMX, one of
3 the PMXs is 2.5, everyone's going to be at the table. It's
4 not going to ag and a few other dusty areas.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Understood. The reason I
6 mentioned ag was just because they're less familiar with
7 being regulated by the air quality community. Not that they
8 haven't been in the past, but they're less familiar with it.
9 And industry, Supervisor, as I'm sure you know, is much
10 better equipped at understanding how we operate as evidenced
11 by Mr. Sickenger's attendance here today.
12 Supervisor Riordan.
13 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
14 the staff for their briefing. I feel very comfortable with
15 the projects that are in front of us and would like to move
16 approval of those research projects.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you. We have
19 a second from Ms. Edgerton. And so, this would be a motion
20 to approve Resolutions 96-48, 96-49, 96-50, 96-51, and 96-
21 52. Any discussion that needs to occur.
22 Okay. With that, we'll also -- we'll do again a
23 voice vote. All those in favor, say aye?
24 (Ayes.)
25 Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
116
1 One last item. No one's signed up for it, so
2 indulge me just one more moment.
3 We have tried to provide an outlet on this agenda
4 for those that come to the Board meeting and they'd like to
5 testify on an item not on the calendar or on the agenda.
6 And what we have done -- we've had this happen several
7 times. Many of us have had our coats on getting ready to
8 run out the door, and I wanted to provide a specific place
9 on the agenda for the public to come and comment.
10 And it's been accommodated in this agenda. Ms.
11 Hutchens tells us that no one has signed up for it, so we
12 can dispense with it. But I wanted to point that out to the
13 Board. I will be asking each witness -- I'm not going to be
14 inviting people, per se, but I'm going to provide an
15 opportunity for them. They'll be facing a time limit out of
16 respect for your time schedules as well as mine.
17 So with that, I would like to thank everyone
18 that's participated today, and I will close this meeting.
19 Mr. Kenny is there anything else you would like
20 for me to cover?
21 MR. KENNY: Not really. But the only comment I
22 would have is I would note that the Board handled three
23 regulatory items in less than three hours, and I hope
24 there's not a level of expectation that occurs as a result
25 of that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
Ô
117
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm certain that now that you
2 brought it up, there will be.
3 All right. With that, this, the September meeting
4 of the California Air Resources Board will now be adjourned.
5 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned
6 at 12:10 p.m.)
7 --o0o--
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER
I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the
State of California, do hereby certify that I am a
disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was
reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter
transcribed into typewriting.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I
interested in the outcome of said meeting.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
this 7th day of October , 1996.
Nadine J. Parks
Shorthand Reporter
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345